Mark S. Smith The Early History Of God Yahweh And The Other Deities In Ancient Israel

MARK S. SMITH

The

Early

History

of

God
Yahweh

and the Other Deities

in Ancient Israel

SECOND EDITION

roreword puy
Patrick D. Miller

Table of Contents

THE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIES
THE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIES
Title Page

Copyright Page

Dedication

Foreword

Preface to the Second Edition
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations and Sigla

Introduction

1. Israel’s “Canaanite” Heritage
2. Yahweh and El
3. Yahweh and Baal

7. Israel and Its Neighbors

CHAPTER 2 - Yahweh and Baal

1. Baal Worship in Israel
2. Imagery of Baal and Yahweh
3. The Role of the Monarchy

4. Excursus: Yahweh and Anat

1. Distribution in the Biblical Record
2. The Symbol ofthe Asherah
3. The Inscriptional Evidence

imagery of Asherah

6. Excursus: Gender Language for Yahweh

CHAPTER 4 - Yahweh and the Sun

1. The Biblical Record

2. Practices Associated with the Dead
3. The ml

Indexes of Texts
Index of Authors
General Index

THE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIES

General Editors

ASTRID B. BECK
DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN

Editorial Board

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE, History and Literature of Early Christianity
JOHN HUEHNERGARD, Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures
PETER MACHINIST, Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures
SHALOM M. PAUL, Hebrew Bible
JOHN P. MEIER, New Testament
STANLEY E. PORTER, New Testament Language and Literature
JAMES C. VANDERKAM, History and Literature of Early Judaism
ADELA YARBRO COLLINS, New Testament

THE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIES

Available

John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, Second Edition

John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, Second
Edition

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., To Advance the Gospel, Second Edition

Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11,
Second Edition

Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting
Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society

Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, Second
Edition

Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions

The Early History of God

Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel

SECOND EDITION

MARK S. SMITH

With a foreword by
Patrick D. Miller

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

Dove BOOKSELLERS
DEARBORN, MICHIGAN

O 1990, 2002 Mark S. Smith
All rights reserved

First published 1990 by HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers

Second edition published 2002
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 /
P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.
www.eerdmans.com
and by
Dove Booksellers
13904 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, Michigan 48126
www.dovebook.com

Printed in the United States of America

07 06 050403765432

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The early history of God: Yahweh and the other deities in ancient Israel /
Mark S. Smith; with a foreword by Patrick D. Miller. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8028-3972-X (paper: alk. paper)
1. God — Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. O.T. — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Gods, Semitic. 4. Israel — Religion. I. Title.

BS1192.6.S55 2002
291.2711°0933 — de21
2002024467

For my father,
Donald Eugene Smith,
with love

Everything God has made beautiful in its own time; also eternity God has given into their heart.

(cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11)

Foreword to the Second Edition

The last quarter century has witnessed a burgeoning of interest in Israelite religion, arising from
significant new discoveries, both epigraphic and iconographic, as well as from renewed attention to
the roots of monotheism in the Bible. No consensus has been reached on the origins of monotheism
in ancient Israel. On the contrary, the distance between perspectives on this question may be farther
than 1t has ever been. There are some who speak with ease of an early polytheism in Israelite
religion, while others insist on the priority and generally exclusive worship of the god Yahweh from
very early stages in Israelite religion.

No single study of Israelite religion during this period of time has contributed more informatively
and constructively to the discussion of the issues than Mark Smith’s volume, The Early History of
God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Its subtitle identifies not only the primary
subject matter but the two perspectives that make this book so valuable. It is in a sense a study of
the beginning of “God,” at least insofar as the contemporary understanding of deity in western
traditions reaches back to the God of Israel. Smith’s effort is not to write a history of Israelite
religion but a history of God, with particular attention to the way in which the understanding of
deity that has so shaped Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — with influences far beyond those circles
— took shape at the earliest stages. The reference to “the other deities” is appropriate because
Yahweh clearly came out of the world of the gods of the ancient Near East, so that kinship relations
to these other deities are there from the beginning. Smith is particularly interested in the “other
deities” as they found their way into Israelite religion as objects of worship alongside the national
deity, Yahweh. But on the way to that analysis, he uncovers the roots of Yahweh and Yahwism and
the ways in which the other deities found their way into the profile and character of Israel’s god. So
the place of the other deities is not simply alongside Israel’s deity but within the god Yahweh as
well as in differentiation and, at times, conflict with him. The development of a typology of
convergence and differentiation, sketched in the introduction and then worked out in the rest of the
chapters, is a major contribution to the possibility of a complex but coherent understanding of the
origins of Yahweh and the place that deity had in the extended history of Israel up to the exile.
Along the way, Smith is attentive to social context and typologies within Israelite religion,
particularly with regard to family and popular religion in distinction from royal and state religion.

The further groundwork laid by this book is to be found in its focus on two aspects of deity that
have come to be seen in much larger ways than previously. Already before Smith’s work appeared,
much discussion — and some heat — had been stirred up over the discovery of texts from two
different areas in eighth-century Judah alluding to an “asherah” in relation to Yahweh. The clear
connection of that term to the equivalent term in the Bible — with its pejorative disdain — as well
as to a goddess well known from second-millennium West Semitic texts has raised the possibility of
Israel'S god having had a recognized consort in pre-exilic Israelite religion. Smith takes this
question up with perspicuity and careful attention to the various views on the topic, including now
the most recent studies of the issue. The further dimension of Yahweh's profile that has grown in
our awareness, in part because of Smith's own original research on the topic, 1s his solar character,
an issue to which a chapter is devoted in this study.

While this major study of Israel's god has not become outdated, the second edition is a welcome
contribution to the further study of Israelite religion and the roots of monotheism. Characteristically
attentive to the latest research, Smith has brought his study up to date at many points. Most
important is the Preface to the Second Edition, itself a small monograph looking afresh at all the
issues discussed in the book from the perspective of the most recent investigations. Even within the
main text, however, especially in the notes, Smith has revised without shifting position — an
unnecessary move in his case because of the wisdom and judiciousness of his constructive and
persuasive view of the origin and nature of Yahweh among the gods of Israel’s world. By a careful
reading of this book, historians and theologians alike will learn much that they need to know in
order to understand the biblical God and the religious world that brought forth the Jewish and
Christian scriptures.

PATRICK D. MILLER

Preface to the Second Edition

1. Recent Research on Deities

It has been over a decade since The Early History of God first appeared, and many new
developments have taken place that have altered the landscape of research on deities. Many new
inscriptional, iconographic, and archaeological discoveries pertinent to research have been made.
Important new epigraphic finds bearing on deities include several inscriptions from Tel Miqneh
(Ekron),1 and the yet to be published Phoenician inscription from the south-western Turkish village
of Injirli.2 Some of the more dramatic discoveries of iconography would be the Bethsaida stele
depicting the horned bull-deity, the Tel Dan plaques representing a seated-god figure and a standing
deity depicted in an unusual fashion, and the Ishtar medallion from Migqneh.4 Finally, archaeology
has further furnished students of Israelite religion with a new arsenal of data to ponder and integrate.
As a result of more recent inscriptional, iconographic, and archaeological discoveries, many
standard hypotheses are fading and new syntheses are emerging in their wake.

The rate of new discoveries has been more than matched by the pace of secondary literature. Over
the last decade the subject of deities in ancient Israel has enjoyed a high profile in the academic
world of biblical studies. Many new articles and books have appeared, treating all of the deities
discussed in The Early History of God. Indeed, hardly a year has passed by without the appearance
of a new volume on the goddess Asherah,* and many other deities have received substantial
treatments in their own right. Offering broad coverage specifically on deities in ancient Israel are
works by well-known European scholars (listed in order by year): O. Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel:
Kanaanäische Gétter und Religion im Alten Testament;> the iconographically oriented synthesis of
O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Góttinen, Gótter und Gottessymbole,* which appeared in English in 1998
under the title Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel;? W. Herrmann, Von Gott und
den Göttern: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament; N. Wyatt, Serving the Gods;? and J. Day,
Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. + The apex of this line of research is the landmark
volume, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), which appeared in a revised,
expanded edition in 1999.

Complementing these works are studies devoted to West Semitic religion. These include G. del
Olmo Lete, La Religión Cananea según la liturgia de Ugarit: Estudio textuel, 2 which was
published in English as Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit; a volume
edited also by del Olmo Lete, Semitas Occidentales (Emar, Ugarit, Hebreaos, Fenicios, Arameos,
Arabes preislamicos) with contributions by D. Arnaud, G. del Olmo Lete, J. Teixidor, and F. Bron;4
and H. Niehr, Religionen in Israels Umwelt: Einführung in die nordwestsemitischen Religionen
Syrien-Palästinas.+% F. Pomponio and P. Xella have produced Les dieux d’Ebla, a resource treating
deities not only in texts from Ebla, but also in later corpora.!ó Wide coverage for Phoenician sources
has been nicely provided by E. Lipiński in his volume, Dieux et deesses de l'univers phénicien et

punique.

Some histories of Israelite religion have also appeared, including R. Albertz’s 1992 work,
Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit! (which was published two years later in
English as A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period).‘2 A more recent entry in
this venerable genre is the 2000 volume of P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient IsraeL% The 2001
volume by Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches,
embodies history of religion research, but this work vastly extends the traditional genre by the depth
of its textual, iconographic, and archaeological treatment as well as its theoretical discussion. By
the time this second edition of The Early History of God appears in print, the field may be
benefiting from the survey of Israelite religion by T. J. Lewis published in the Anchor Bible
Reference Library (Doubleday).22 Conference volumes and other collections on Israelite religion in
its West Semitic milieu also have made their impact.

New investigations of polytheism and monotheism include H. Niehr’s Der höchste Gott; J. C.
de Moor’s substantial yet controversial volume, The Rise of Yahwism: Roots of Israelite
Monotheism;22 N. Wyatt's Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Power and Ideology in Ugaritic and

Biblical Tradition;2° R. K. Gnuse’s combination of ancient religion and modern theology, No Other
Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel;*4 and my study, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism:
Israels Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.28 There has also appeared a popular work
on the subject, with essays by D. B. Redford, W. G. Dever, P. K. McCarter, and J. J. Collins.2? A
number of substantial essays have also addressed this topic.22

As all of the new discoveries and research indicates?! it is impossible to do justice to the progress
of the past decade or so on the topic of deities in ancient Israel. In what follows, I would like to
offer an idea of some of the main trends and ongoing problems bearing on research on deities in
ancient Israel.

2. Important Trends since 1990

Looking beyond specific works on deities to the wider disciplines informing the study of Israelite
religion, several new trends have emerged over the last decade. Apart from new discoveries, I would
mention three trends in the study of Israelite religion.

First, the study of iconography and its relevance for Israelite religion has come to the fore with
particular force. Already mentioned above is the tremendously important synthetic work by the
team of O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Góttinen, Gótter und Gottessymbole (English translation: Gods,
Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel). The field has also benefited from the many
important studies on iconography by many figures, including (the late lamented) P. Beck, I.
Cornelius, E. Gubel, T. Ornan, B. Sass, and S. Timm.32 A major “event” on the specific question of
Israelite iconography and aniconism was T. N. D. Mettinger’s 1995 book, No Graven Image?
Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. This work spawned a tremendous
amount of discussion, epitomized by the essays in The Image and the Book; Iconic Cults,
Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East,*4 and an important
review article by T. J. Lewis?? as well as the overview by N. Na'aman.Ó As a result of this work,
iconography has emerged as a third major set of data in addition to texts and archaeological realia in
the study of Israelite religion.

Second, synthetic archaeological research has reached a new level of sophistication. Examples of
important work by archaeologists interested in situating biblical texts in their larger cultural contexts
include studies by L. E. Stager?? as well as J. D. Schloen;?$ D. M. Master, and E. M. Bloch-Smith,
including her monograph, Judahite Burials Practices and Beliefs about the Dead.*® In addition,
three prominent accessible syntheses produced by senior members of the archaeological field
appeared in 2001: a beautiful volume by P. J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel; W. G.
Dever’s all too often venomous book, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They
Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel;* and the somewhat
one-sided work of I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Already cited above is
the monumental 2001 volume by Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of
Parallactic Approaches, “ which deserves to be mentioned in this context because of its massive
synthesis of archaeological sources. Another recent entry among archaeological investigation of
Israelite religion is B. Alpert Nakhai's Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel.

Underlying the efforts at synthesis 1s the theoretical discussion about the relationships between
primary texts and other remains in the interpretation of ancient cultures. Over fifteen years ago, F.
Brandfon wrote a probing piece in which he addressed some of the theoretical difficulties.4° Yet
until relatively recently this critical reflection has not informed the mainstream of the discussion.
For example, W. G. Dever has long been known for his important archaeological research and
sustained interest in the social sciences. However, in his theoretical stance toward the historically
pertinent material embodied in the Bible and archaeological record, Dever shrinks back to an
entrenched position of what he himself characterizes as “common sense.”48 Why is this? I would
only offer my suspicion that Dever’s difficulties stem from a pragmatism (he characterizes his
model as one of “neopragmatism’*2), which evidently eshews philosophy and more specifically
philosophy of history. In contrast, in 2001 two well-known figures moved this discussion to center
stage. Zevit devotes the first eighty pages of The Religions of Ancient Israel to the subject. J. D.
Schloen has offered his philosophical prolegomenon on archaeology and historical research in his
book, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol.39 Schloen senses a great theoretical need where
Dever assumes a posture of “common sense.” Schloen comments: “Tempting as it may be to avoid
explicit theorizing, the fact remains that contestable choices are embedded in even the most
*obvious' and innocent-looking of “common sense” interpretations in archaeology and socio-
economic history.”>1

Third, and related, the impact of social sciences has been felt in a stronger way over the past

decade. Anthropology and sociology have informed the work of archaeologists and other scholars
working in religion. Following older studies by R. Albertz on personal religion and drawing on the

classic work of the sociologist Emile Durkheim, K. van der Toorn has emphasized the basic
structure of the family for understanding Israelite culture and religion as a whole. His work on
domestic and gender issues in religion deserves special note here, especially his impressive 1996
book, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel and his simpler yet useful 1994 monograph,
From Her Cradle to Her Grave. Van der Toorn is continuing the analysis of religion from the
vantage point of social location. At present, he is preparing a study of intellectual religion which
examines the understanding of divinity and the world in scribal circles in Israel and ancient
Mesopotamia. Influenced by Max Weber, J. D. Schloen offers some initial suggestions about
applying the concept of the patrimonial household to the pantheon.3* I have applied this line of
inquiry in order to explore conceptual monisms within Ugaritic and early Israelite polytheisms, and
in turn to understand better the background for the emergence of Judean monotheism in the seventh-
sixth centuries B.C.E.?? Similarly, studies of Anat by P. L. Day and N. H. Walls?? have looked at
family structure in order to enhance the understanding of one specific deity, namely the goddess
Anat. Another area where social sciences has been influential in the study of religion of Israel and
Ugarit involves ritual studies (developed by figures such as Catherine Bell). As only three works
informed strongly by this area, I would mention G. A. Anderson's A Time to Mourn, A Time to
Dance, S. M. Olyan's Rites and Rank, and D. P. Wright's Ritual in Narrative.?3 Finally, studies of
Israelite ethnicity have been applied to both archaeological data?? and biblical texts.

As a result of studies drawing on social sciences, texts whether biblical or extrabiblical have been
situated more within the different segments of societies which produce them. This agenda is hardly
new,S. but the research has become more influential. Accordingly, the perspectives offered in the
texts may not represent the cultures as wholes (as presupposed by the long-used constructs
“Israelite” and/or/versus “Canaanite”). Instead, texts have been taken as representations of the
overlapping perspectives of various social factions, strata, and segments: so-called official versus
popular; domestic versus public; elite versus peasant; male versus female. J. Berlinerblau has
discussed sociological refinements in these categories. 2 He has also criticized the use of the long-
used categories, “popular” and “official” religion. How research uses and nuances these categories
and their dynamic interrelationship remains to be seen. Scholars in biblical studies will continue to
compare and contrast as well as critique the construction of these categories in other academic
fields. As a corollary of these refinements, syntheses in archaeological and textual research have
further attempted to situate religious practices or notions known from texts within specific
architectural locations as attested in the archaeological record. In addition to Z. Zevit’s massive
study cited above, I would mention in this vein T. H. Blomquist’s 1999 book, Gates and Gods,
and a recent article by A. Faust on doorway orientation and Israelite cosmology.

On the whole, news vistas offered by iconographic and archaeological data have been
accompanied by advances in theoretical considerations. Inclusion of a wider range of primary data
has been matched by an increase in theoretical considerations and efforts at synthesis. With these
changes have come several serious challenges.

3. Theoretical Challenges

While the turn of the millennium has witnessed strong research on Israelite deities and religion,
several older difficulties remain. Despite many gains, the basic task remains largely a matter of
interpreting and integrating small pieces of evidence drawn from rather disparate sources. In
studying biblical texts in particular, scholars are often dealing with literary vestiges of religious
practices and worldviews. The larger works in which these older vestiges appear have so refracted
the earlier religious history that their recovery requires disembedding them from their literary
contexts. This may seem counterintuitive to many readers of the Bible because such an operation
often runs against the grain of the Bible’s claims. In my opinion, what vestiges we have provide
barely enough material to write a proper history of religion for ancient Israel. In general, it is very
difficult to garner little more than a broad picture of Israel prior to the eighth century, and at times
the theses offered seem conjectural. Readers missing a clear societal context (or, set of contexts) for
the wider developments discussed in this book will be largely disappointed. More specifically, the
vestiges of early Israelite religion point to a development which I labelled “convergence” in this
book, but these vestiges all too often do not, in my opinion, provide sufficient information to
illuminate their social and political background, apart from a circumstantial case made for royal
impact. As for the phenomenon which I called “differentiation,” I did note some of the ancient
players (specifically, priestly lines as well as the writers and tradents behind the book of
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History) in this development, but here too the vestiges offer
only a partial view of their larger historical context.

The fundamental difficulty lies in the nature of textual evidence. Because mythic images (and
little mythic narrative) have been incorporated and refracted through the textual lens of the various
genres, these genres offer only a glimpse of the larger understanding. Furthermore, the texts have
been written so much after the fact or have undergone such long redactional histories that the
situation with the various deities is very difficult to gauge. This situation is particularly acute with
the Iron I period, but it also affects our understanding of Iron II. Archaeology and iconography,
while central to the enterprise, can alleviate only some of the difficulty. Both require interpretation
all too often in the face of little or no aid from roughly contemporary textual sources (apart from
Judges 5 and perhaps some other small number of texts). As a result, it is generally not possible to
recover how premonarchic Israel fashioned its own narrative about its religious identity (reflected in
the early archaeological and iconographic evidence).® Instead, scholars combine a number of
approaches into their syntheses: they rely heavily on the small number of early texts, they add
interpretations drawn from the contemporary archaeological or iconographic sources, and they work
from later texts that seem (at least, to them) to reflect the earlier situation (Zevit's work 1s a good
example of this situation). The work remains highly inferential. This shortcoming may be overcome
in the future by new discoveries, more extensive examinations of the data, and their incorporation
into more theoretically sophisticated frameworks.

Recent developments have complicated the task as well. First, newer research has altered long-
standing axioms of biblical studies. For example, the older source theory of the Pentateuch (often
called the “Documentary Hypothesis”) had already come under serious fire when The Early History
of God first appeared (this is the reason why the conventional sigla for the Pentateuchal sources
were given quotation marks). The newer redactional model developed by E. Blum® and extended
by D. M. Carr? on the biblical side, and the studies of redaction in Gilgamesh by J. H. Tigay on the
ancient Near Eastern side,2! have complicated source theory without abolishing it. While the death
knell for source theory was sounded often over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, it has not been
supplanted by a more persuasive model. Tigay’s work in particular suggests that source criticism
comports with what is known for the composition and transmission of ancient texts outside the
Bible. Moreover, old-fashioned source criticism and redaction criticism could be combined and
modified to order to provide a satisfactory range of models of textual composition that would attend
to the interrelated processes of memorization and reading, writing and interpretation (addressing
among other questions, Israelite practices of commemoration and memorization, both by scribes and
in the wider culture).

These processes were addressed in an incipient way in the first edition of The Early History of
God (chapter 6), but several further points about orality and scribalism have been made recently, for
example by S. A. Niditch and by R. F. Person, Jr. Studies also stress literacy, for example the
otherwise widely varying treatments by M. D. Coogan, J. L. Crenshaw, and M. Haran M.
Fishbane has nicely noted the role of interpretation in scribal practice. It is the intersection of
literacy, orality, interpretation, collective memory, and modes of memorization that underlay scribal
praxis. Indeed, the ingredients insufficiently represented in the discussion of the praxis of ancient
Israelite textual composition are, to my mind, cultural memory and memorization. The former has
been addressed increasingly in recent years,£ while the latter continues to be largely neglected. In
contrast, memory and memorization are nicely noted in C. Hezser’s work, Jewish Literacy in
Roman Palestine” and beautifully emphasized by M. Carruthers in her two studies of medieval
culture. The constellation of scribal practices, including memorization, are attested for Israel in
the Lachish letters. As only one working model, it might be assumed that such a scribal praxis
informed late monarchic Judean (and perhaps later) textual production that underlies those narrative
works regarded later as biblical (Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History). From the eighth century
(Isaiah) through the sixth century (Jeremiah), prophetic accounts suggest a further range of models
combining reading, writing, and interpretation, 99 while some sixth-century prophecy (Second
Isaiah) shows an orientation around reading, interpretation, and writing.®! Liturgical models
combining memory and writing perhaps in yet other modes can be discerned in the diachronic reuse
of texts, such as Psalm 29:1-2.2 An example of priestly reading, writing, and interpretation of prior
tradition and texts may be found in Genesis 1:1-2:3. In addition to these models, multiple editions
of biblical works proposed through text-critical analysis offer further perspective on the practices
underlying some aspects of scribal compositions and transmission.5* Well beyond the scope of this
discussion, ultimately a successful history of religion will have to include working out a history of
models of textual production in ancient Israel (along with criteria for assessing them), locate the
witnesses to those models within their social settings, interrelate those witnesses and settings, and
synthesize what information they provide about Israelite religion.

Second, literary study with little or no interest in diachronic development (coupled with a de-
emphasis on ancient langages apart from Hebrew) has tended to minimize the significance of
ancient Near Eastern contexts of Israelite culture, not to mention Israelite history in general and the
history of Israelite religion specifically. To name only a handful of subdisciplines applied to the
Hebrew Bible, structuralism, reader-response theory, ideological criticism, and postmodern readings
have contributed to a devaluation of diachronic research, including the history of the religion of
Israel.85 While each wave of atomism within the biblical field seems to be met by an opposing wave
of interdisciplinary research (which often reintegrates what has been become atomized), the
sustained disassociation of the study of biblical literature from Israelite history complicates the
situation. However, the neglect has cut in the other direction at the same time. The full impact of
literary study, which has all too often been neglected in history of religion research (including my
own),36 has yet to be felt in syntheses of Israelite religion.

Third, and related, the study of Israelite history in particular has become more problematic over
the last decade. Refined analyses reveal data which do not fit into traditional large-scale syntheses.
The common models for the origins of Israel in the land (conquest, infiltration, and peasant- revolt)
have all been inundated by evidence derived from surveys and excavations. Regional variations call
into question the viability of a single master thesis to explain the situation on the ground. The
discussions of the Late Bronze-Iron I and the Iron I-Iron II transitions have grown in complexity.
Serious doubts as to the historicity of the biblical descriptions of the United Monarchy have been
increasingly voiced by I. Finkelstein and others; and despite strong efforts by archaeologists such as
Stager and Dever in the United States and A. Mazar and A. Ben-Tor in Israel, defending the
historicity of biblical events purporting to date to the tenth century has become a more difficult
proposition. Pertinent studies largely from the textual side include two recent books bearing on the
figure of David, produced by B. Halpern and S. L. McKenzie. These attempt to sift the myth from
the life of the historical David; no simple task. Despite the challenges, these works are remarkably
sane, and they would suggest the plausibility of historical recontruction based on critical analyses of
biblical texts.

The historical questions remain problematic, even without introducing the further issues involved
in responding to the challenges posed by figures such as P. Davies, N. P. Lemche, and T.
Thompson.*? Their efforts to locate biblical texts generally in the Persian or even the Hellenistic

period pass over many linguistic and historical difficulties of their own. A recent entry in the
discussion of the Iron Age is the dissertation of K. Wilson directed by P. K. McCarter.% Wilson
disputes the historical value of the Shishak list which he argues does not provide evidence for a
specific campaign by Shishak; instead, the list represents a compilation of sites designed to
represent Shishak as a world-conqueror. Wilson’s argument does not undermine the biblical
evidence concerning Shishak’s campaign, which could well have taken place as 1 Kings 14:25
claims, but his argument would preclude using the Shishak list in the discussion of correlating
destruction levels at archaeological sites with the Shishak list itself. As a result, a major linchpin in
tenth-century chronology falls.

More fundamental questions surrounding the definition of “history” and the Bible underlie these
discussions. Biblical historians agree that the biblical narratives of the past constitute history, but
their disagreement over the definition of history raises serious problems. For example, both B.
Halpern and M. Brettler treat the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles as history, % but they
strongly differ in their understanding as to how these biblical works constitute history. Brettler
rejects Halpern’s view of the biblical historians as having an antiquarian interest in using sources to
recover a past that they believed was the case. Instead, Brettler prefers a broader definition of
history as a narrative about the past. Brettler further notes the didactic function of these works, not
to mention the literary tropes that help to advance their teaching goals. Given the difference between
Halpern and Brettler over what constitutes history, one may ask if a basic problem afflicts their
operating assumption that biblical narratives about the past are history. Without exhausting the
considerations that go into whether these works are history, it seems worthwhile to examine the
degree to which biblical presentations of the past shape the past to conform to present concerns, or
in other words, how cultural memory is expressive of present vicissitudes. Brettler nicely explores
this function of collective memory, and his definition does not distinguish between history and a
narrative about the past produced by the collective memory of a tradition.

Where biblical scholars such as Halpern and Brettler maintain that biblical works such as the
Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through Kings) and the books of Chronicles constitute history, I
have my doubts about the scope of this characterization. Even in the case of the books of
Chronicles, where the use of sources is clear, their author(s) may have inherited such source
material from religious tradition and used that source material not simply to create a narration
presenting the past, but one whose primary function was to celebrate the past as an antecedent to the
present. The historical-looking work of Chronicles seems to lack some assessment of sources, and it
shows a deeply commemorative function in its narrative of the past, specifically in structuring the
past in terms of the present.2 Unlike Brettler, I would probably put history and collective memory
in narrative forms on a spectrum, perhaps with the crucial distinction lying not simply in using prior
sources or an author’s interest in the past as such (pace Halpern), but in an author’s work being
informed by some sense of what goes into the representation of the past as past. In any case, this
discussion indicates that these theoretical questions impinging on the Bible and its representations
of the past necessarily involve a number of critical issues which have yet to be assimilated into the
discussion (with the partial exception of Zevit's The Religions of Ancient Israel).

Fourth and finally, use of the Ugaritic texts for the study of Israelite religion has evolved since the
first edition of The Early History of God. Since 1990, comparison of Ugaritic and biblical texts has
come to be viewed in more complex terms. Scholars are well beyond the situation of “pan-
Ugariticism” in biblical studies derided in earlier decades. The high-water mark of Ugaritic-biblical
parallels was reached with the three volumes of Ras Shamra Parallels and the trend ebbed around
1985. Simplistic drawing of Ugaritic and biblical parallels has passed from fashion. Morever, a
certain disjunction has taken place between Ugaritic and biblical studies, while more attention has
been paid to locating Ugarit within its larger societal and ecological context. The French
archaeological team has produced a whole new awareness of ancient Ugaritic culture. Wider
interests of industry and society have been treated by the French team, and by other scholars. A
related development involves situating Ugaritic and Ugarit within their larger ancient Syrian
context, as known at other sites, some known for decades (Mari), others more recently (Emar,
Munbaqa/Tel Ekalte, ‘Ain Dara, Suhu).2° The field will also continue to be aided by Amorite
material HI

The field of Ugaritic studies no longer holds, nor should it hold, to an unilinear focus aimed
toward ancient Israel or the Bible. All these discoveries have forced scholars interested in situating
the Bible in its wider West Semitic context to take a longer (perhaps more scenic) route in traveling
the historical and cultural distances between Ugarit and ancient Israel. Such an intellectual

situation will in no way diminish the important and deep cultural and linguistic relations between
the Ugaritic and biblical texts; instead, such relations are now understood more richly. Commenting
on the comparison of the Ugaritic texts and the Bible, Keel and Uehlinger are, technically speaking,
right to state that the Ugaritic texts “are not primary sources for the religious history of Canaan and
Israel,” but such a view hardly precludes seeing the Ugaritic texts as providing some of the larger
background behind the development of Israelite religion. Although it is quite correct to note the
temporal, geographical, and cultural distance between the Ugaritic and biblical texts it is
precisely the differences within their larger similarities that sharpen scholarly understanding of
Israelite religion, in particular its differentiation from the larger West Semitic culture of which the
Ugaritic texts constitute the single greatest extra-biblical textual witness. Again this issue, like the
others mentioned above in this section, stands in need of further investigation and refinement.

It is clear from consideration of these challenges that the field is moving forward on several
fronts that include both the collection and assessment of new data as well as the consideration of
theory from various quarters. History of religion work for ancient Israel remains largely in the stage
of assembling and examining pertinent data, with steps having been taken toward satisfactory
theoretical frameworks for specific topics within the larger enterprise. At this point, a more
overarching theoretical framework for the larger enterprise still has yet to appear. Perhaps because
of its historical roots in theology, the field of Israelite religion (not to mention biblical studies
generally) remains one that does not generate its own general theoretical contribution to the
humanities or social sciences. Yet the successes of the recent decade should not be minimized.
Increasing complexity in the patterns of religous concepts and their development has clearly marked
more recent research. The factors that go into the conceptualization of Israelite religion as an
intellectual project have grown enormously.

4. Asherah/asherah Revisited

I would like to take this opportunity to revisit briefly this area of the first edition of The Early
History of God, first because the chapter on this subject received substantial criticism and because
the field has maintained strong interest in Asherah studies.12! In the meantime, the main base of
data has changed in two respects. The first is the addition of the newer inscriptional material from
Tel Miqneh (Ekron).12 The second is the increase in iconographic evidence brought to bear on the
discussion. At the forefront of this effort has been O. Keel and C. Uehlinger’s important
iconographic work in their book, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, and in Keel’s 1998

Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh 13

At this point the range of viewpoints about Asherah as a goddess in Israel is perhaps best
represented on one side by S. M. Olyan’s acceptance of the goddess in his important 1988
monograph, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, and on the other by C. Frevel’s considerably
circumscribed and extensive 1995 study, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitanspruch YHWHs,14
(Keel and Uehlinger's Gods, Goddesses and Images of Godt% combines the two views, namely that
the symbol of the asherah lost its associations to the goddess by the eighth century, only to regain
them by the second half of the seventh century.) Since the first edition of The Early History of God,
several other studies have appeared. S. Ackerman has also situated the issues against the larger issue
of popular religion in ancient Israel.12° She has made a further case for a royal ideology paralleling
Asherah and the queen mother in ancient Judah. S. A. Wiggins has surveyed the comparative
evidence, and his work offers a critique of what he regards as the excessive claims made about the
evidence for Asherah.1® There is also John Day’s treatment of the issues in his book, Yahweh and
the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Additional Mesopotamian material has been supplied by P.
Merlo's 1998 work, La dea Asratum — Atiratu — Asera,9? The field now enjoys the benefit of
having J. M. Hadley's fine study, entitled 7he Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah:
Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. M. Dijkstra and M. C. A. Korpel have addressed the question pro

and con in a recent volume of essays. 1?

At this point most commentators believe that Asherah was a goddess in monarchic Israel (e.g.,
Ackerman, Binger, Day, Dever, Dijkstra, Edelman, Hadley, Handy, Keel and Uehlinger, Loretz,
Merlo, Niehr, Olyan, Petty, Wyatt, Xella, Zevit, as well as NJPS at 1 Kings 15:13). Some do not
(e.g., Cross, H Frevel, Korpel, Tigay; cf. Emerton’s very cautious formulation, McCarter’s asherah
as Yahweh’s hypostasis, Miller’s nuanced position of secondary divinization of the symbol). The
first edition of The Early History of God! concluded that the evidence was insufficient to
demonstrate that Asherah was a goddess in Israel during the monarchy and asked whether the
symbol of the asherah lost its original association with the goddess at that point. I would not state
categorically that there was no goddess in monarchic Israel, but would stress that the data
marshalled in support of the goddess in this period are more problematic than advocates have
suggested. The Early History of God offers arguments why Asherah may not have enjoyed cultic
devotion in the period of the monarchy despite the apparently strong evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
and in 1 Kings 15 and 18, 2 Kings 21 and 23. Advocates for Asherah as a monarchic period goddess
in Israel did not address sufficiently the idea that a cultic symbol may have been rendered in the
2 Kings 21:7 (so, too, 2 Kings 23:6). What could be involved is a more elaborate royal version of
the ’aseera.

Some new objections to this view have been raised since the first edition of The Early History of
God. It has been considered implausible that cultic devotion could be paid to the cultic item of the
aserá (as in 2 Kings 23).113 However, J. Tigay notes an example in a discussion that many
commentators have overlooked. It is to be noted further that if the Jerusalemite temple tradition
was aniconic or at least non-anthropomorphic for Yahweh (as many scholars argue),/> then it
would be reasonable to entertain the possibility that the image of the asherah might be at least non-

Ae

for “goddesses” demonstrates that its ancient users knew that the word 'aserá stood for a divine

name. However, this logic suffers from the etymological fallacy.

It is dubious to argue that the reference to the prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18:19 demonstrates
an earlier awareness of the goddess Asherah, if this knowledge was the product of a polemical
misidentification with Astarte. In other words, the symbol may have been misconstrued to pertain to
some goddess because later tradents who added the reference to a putative Phoenician Asherah to 1
Kings 18:19 conflated the Phoenician Astarte (there is no Phoenician Asherah attested) with the
name of the symbol and assumed that it represented a goddess named Asherah (this explanation

would comport with the textual variations between Asherah and Astarte!“ and between 'úserót and

’astarét).8 Accordingly, a misconstrual informs a claim made that my “explanation of ‘asérd
surely still implies an awareness of the goddess Asherah in Israel"? Later literary usage of ‘asérd
implies only that at some time in the history of Israelite religion there was an awareness of Asherah

as a goddess, not necessarily still in the time when the literary usage is attested. 120

The polemical nature of the Deuteronomistic History has been raised as a powerful argument in
favor of 'dserá as a goddess. The history's handling of references (including the most crucial
biblical attestation to ha 'áserá with “the baal” in 2 Kings 23:4 suggesting a deity), but it is unclear
whether this is historical observation or polemic. There is an important, broader consideration in the
discussion. Curiously, advocates such O. Loretz sometimes claim that those scholars who do not
accept 'aserá in the passages mentioned above as a goddess have been deceived by the ideological
perspective of the Deuteronomistic History or are somehow psychologically unprepared to deal with
its outlook.121 However, if it were true that the Deuteronomistic authors understand ’äserä in the
passages involved as a goddess (as the advocates maintain) and if their work is an ideologically
charged polemic (as the advocates also claim, rightly in my view), why should its viewpoint
regarding the nature of ‘asérd as a goddess during the monarchy be accepted as historically reliable?
In short, the appeal to the ideological character of the Deuteronomistic History cuts as readily
against those who accept 'aserá as a goddess; it might be argued that advocates are the scholars
taken in by the ideological perspective of the Deuteronomistic History. On the whole, I find this
particular line of discussion unproductive. Furthermore, if one were inclined to draw psychological
inferences about scholars (pace Loretz), one might make the counterclaim that the Zeitgeist of our
age psychologically preconditions advocates to desire to discover a goddess in ancient Israel. In
short, psychological arguments are tendentious, and barring clear evidence, implicitly ad hominem
(or, ad feminam).

Finally with respect to the biblical discussion, The Early History of God proposed that the demise
of the goddess’s cult would have begun by the end of the pre-monarchic period. However, this
position too needs to be revisited and qualified. So much relies on an argument from silence
especially where the tenth and ninth centuries are involved. Accordingly, one might see the duration
of the goddess’s cult later and situate the beginning of the symbol’s career apart from the goddess by
the end of the ninth century. It is hard to be precise on this point. Different rates of change may
apply in different areas or social segments or movements, and so it is possible that the transition
took place in some quarters even later. The discussion warrants considerably greater circumspection
in the matter of the biblical evidence.

The discussion of main inscriptional evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud has continued to revolve
around the grammatical interpretation of /‘srth. Scholars continue to debate whether the name of the
goddess can take a pronominal suffix./22 There seems to be a deadlock over this issue. For scholars
wishing to obviate this difficulty and to see Asherah as a monarchic period Israelite goddess, they
take refuge in the view that the word involved is instead the symbol of the ‘aséra which represents
the goddess. In addition to the important grammatical question, there are semantic issues affecting
the interpretation of the noun as either the goddess’s name or the symbol in its putative capacity of
referring to the goddess. If /’srth in the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud refers to the goddess
(“and by/to his Asherah"), then it is unclear what “his Asherah” means. Only by assuming an
ellipsis of “his consort, Asherah” or the like does the word as a reference to the goddess’s name
make reasonable sense. If /‘srth means “his asherah” referring to the symbol (surely the most
reasonable view grammatically, as advocates generally hold), then “his asherah” should denote
something that is not hers, but “his.” On this point, Zevit correctly asks: “What would it have meant
to say that the goddess belonged to or was possessed by Yahweh?’!23 I would therefore remain
partial to the answer proposed in the first edition of this book, namely that a symbol had earlier
referred to the goddess by the same name, but it came to function by the time of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
inscriptions as part of Yahweh’s symbolic repertoire, possibly with older connotations associated

with the goddess; in other words, the asherah was “his.” Older connotations of the goddess may
have continued in the literary record despite the demise of her cult.

The contribution made by the Tel Miqneh (Ekron) inscriptions to this discussion depends on their
interpretation. The excavator of the site, S. Gitin, understood the words ‘srt or qds in the
inscriptions as the name and title (“Holy One”) of the goddess./24 Given the Phoenician cognates
for these words and the resemblances of the Ekron script with Phoenician writing, others have
preferred to view these words respectively as “shrine” and “holy” (place).2 This is not to deny that
the site knew at least one goddess. The goddess called “PTGYH, his lady,” is attested in an
important inscription from Miqneh. The identity of this goddess is disputed; offered as options
are Pidray known from Ugaritic texts, Pothnia (assuming a scribal error) or Pythogaia, both known
from the Aegean.!2 However, this figure may have no bearing on the references to Srt and qd in

the epigraphic evidence from Miqneh.

In conclusion, I am not opposed in theory to the possibility that Asherah was an Israelite goddess
during the monarchy. My chief objection to this view is that it has not been demonstrated, given the
plausibility of alternative views. By the same token, the case has not been disproven, and I must
concede that I may be wrong. It may be only a matter of time before superior evidence attesting to
Asherah’s cult in monarchic Israel is discovered.

5. In Retrospect

As the preceding sections illustrate, the landscape of academic research has continued to develop
mostly in ways that are intellectually challenging and refreshing. Despite the advances discussed in
the first section above and the desiderata addressed in the second section, a new edition of The
Early History of God may serve as an introductory work to Yahweh and other major deities in
ancient Israel. In this second edition, I have been able to correct errors, prune some of the more
dubious citations, and modify some of the larger discussion. I am also pleased to be able to update
the most important bibliography and primary data. Readers interested in a more complete and recent
discussion of the issues would benefit from perusing Zevit’s important book, The Religions of
Ancient Israel. If readers wish to know more about what I think, my views particularly on
polytheism and monotheism are explored in my recent book, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism
(published in 2001).

In some ways, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism reads like a sequel to The Early History of
God. The former builds on the latter in an effort to develop a more sustained analysis of the
development of monotheism in the seventh and sixth centuries. In a sense, The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism picks up where the discussion of monotheism in chapters 6 and 7 of The Early History
of God leave off. (Accordingly, some of the processes prior to monotheism, such as convergence
and differentiation, hallmarks of The Early History of God, are presumed in The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism.) The new book also revisits the Ugaritic texts and early biblical evidence and makes a
number of suggestions about how conceptual unity informing polytheism in the Ugaritic texts may
help scholars to understand monotheistic formulations found in the Bible. The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism also contains more theoretical considerations left aside in The Eary History of God. In
order to make the connections between the two books easier to follow, I have included numerous
citations to The Origins of Biblical Monotheism in this second edition of The Early History of God.
This has also given me the opportunity to fill out some points (such as the original home of Yahweh
in Edom/ Midian/Teiman and his original profile as a warrior-god as well as the process leading to
his assimilation into the highland pantheon, headed by El along with his consort, Asherah, and
populated further by Baal and other deities). By the same token, I have advanced a number of
further points in this second edition not found in the first edition or in The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism. Despite their flaws, it is my hope that these two books will contribute toward future
studies offering a more sophisticated history of religions analysis and synthesis for ancient Israel.

I would like to close with some acknowledgments and thanks. In retrospect, the aid offered by
those recognized in the preface to the first edition is all the more appreciated. Morever, I am grateful
to the reviewers of the first edition of the book (G. Ahlström, L. Boadt, D. Edelman, D. N.
Freedman, L. K. Handy, R. S. Hendel, R. S. Hess, W. L. Humphreys, T. J. Lewis, O. Loretz, N.
Lohfink, S. B. Parker, J. G. Taylor, and Z. Zevit), as well as other scholars who have commented on
The Early History of God (among others, J. Day, D. V. Edelman, J. Hadley, T. N. D. Mettinger, and
K. van der Toorn). All of the responses have been extremely helpful, and I am very grateful for
them. I wish also to express my thanks to Eerdmans for its interest in publishing a second edition of
this work and for their help in producing it. Patrick Miller generously agreed to provide a foreword
to this edition, and I am very grateful to him for his reflections. I am also thankful for the learning
Pve received from students and colleagues in the Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies as well
as the Religion and Ancient Studies programs at New York University. I wish to “update” my thanks
to my family, the joy of my life. My wife, Liz Bloch-Smith, has offered constant professional help
and personal support (including suggesting improvements for this preface). Our three children,
Benjamin, Rachel, and Shulamit, have contributed in ways more wonderful than they will ever
know. The two editions of this book mark their progress thus far in their lives: Benjamin, four years
old at the time when the first edition was finished, is now sixteen; Rachel was two, but is now
fourteen; and Shula is now ten. Finally, the first edition’s dedication to my father, Donald Eugene
Smith, feels even more true now than it did in 1990.

New York University
10 February 2002

MARK S. SMITH
Department of Hebrew
and Judaic Studies

Acknowledgments (First Edition)

While in residence at the W. F. Albright Institute in Jerusalem in the spring of 1987, I began
research on this work in conjunction with a commentary on the Ugaritic Baal cycle. As I delved into
the use of parallels to the Baal cycle, the problems attending the often-cited biblical parallels began
to require attention in their own right. The character of the biblical parallels, their relationship to
one another, and their bearing on Israelite culture generated an investigation separate from my
examination of the Baal cycle. This volume is the result of the detour I took. It represents an attempt
to synthesize a wide array of information building on the studies of many scholars. It is my great
pleasure to acknowledge my debt to those who facilitated my research in various ways.

My family’s stay at the Albright Institute during the spring and summer of 1987 was made
possible by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Thanks to the congenial and stimulating
environment of the Albright, I was able to work well. I wish to acknowledge my great debt of
gratitude to its director, Dr. Sy Gitin, his family, and his staff. They were helpful and friendly to my
wife, Liz Bloch-Smith, and me, and tolerant of our (then) one-and-a-half-year-old Benjamin, as he
became accustomed to running about the hallways and exercising his newly found vocal facility. My
visit to the Albright was enhanced further by the help and hospitality of the community of Ecole
Biblique et Archeologique Francaise. Like the warmth of the people living at the Albright, the
generosity and friendship offered to me by the Ecole community made East Jerusalem seem like
home. Emile Puech, Marcel Sigrist, John Strugnell, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Benedict Viviano
were especially kind. Other friends in Jerusalem were likewise personally and intellectually
generous: Celia and Steve Fassberg, Bella and Jonas Greenfield, Menachem Haran, Ruth Hestrin,
Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurwitz, Ami Mazar, Abraham Malamat, Shalom Paul, Alexander Rofe,
Arlene and Steve Rosen, and Aaron Schaffer. The apartment of Charlotte and Mordecai Hopp was
always a second home to us. The Association of Theological Schools and the Dorot Foundation
provided for my family’s living expenses during this term. I am especially grateful to the president
of the Dorot Foundation, Joy Underleider-Mayerson, who has long supported my research with
financial aid and personal encouragement. Yale University was kind enough to permit my leave of
absence for the spring semester of 1987. The spring of 1987 was a wonderful time for me, and I
thank all these friends and institutions for making it so.

Upon returning to Yale in the summer of 1987, I benefited from the community of scholars and
friends who helped in many ways with my research. I am especially grateful to my colleagues and
friends who aided me in this study. Gary Beckman, Bill Hallo, Sarah Morris, Saul Olyan, Marvin
Pope, Chris Seitz, and Bob Wilson read an early draft of this manuscript and offered many helpful
suggestions. My wife, Liz Bloch-Smith, offered critical questions and observations regarding
material culture, especially burials and other realia pertaining to the dead. To Saul Olyan I am
especially indebted, as chapter 3 of this study drew heavily from his work on the asherah, which
first appeared as a chapter in his dissertation (Harvard University, 1985) and has now been
published as a monograph, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (1988). Our conversations
frequently helped to clarify many points and to stimulate my thinking. I am very grateful to Yale,
where my position afforded me the time and resources to conduct research. I wish to thank Douglas
Green, Richard Whitekettle, and Stephen Cook, who participated in a semester of the Ugaritic
seminar devoted primarily to the texts and topics in this work. Gósta Ahlstróm, Baruch Halpern,
Stephen Happel, Patrick Miller, Dennis Pardee, and Jeffrey Tigay, as well as my father, Donald E.
Smith, and my father-in-law, Ted C. Bloch, read a draft of this work and offered many comments
and insights. For their generosity with their time and their help, I thank them. I express my gratitude
to Stephen Happel, who encouraged me to make this work more accessible to scholars outside the
field of biblical studies. Toward this end I added the second section to the Introduction describing
the assumptions that biblical scholars customarily make. I am further grateful to Professor Happel
for commenting on drafts of this section. I also thank a number of scholars for providing me with
access to their work before publication: Marc Brettler, Peter Machinist, Dennis Pardee, and David
Petersen. I wish to express a word of great thanks to my editor, John Collins, for offering many
valuable suggestions, and to Harper & Row, for including this work in its highly selective academic
books program. I also thank Stephen Cook for his assistance with proofreading.

The professional biblical societies greatly aided the completion of this work. Many scholars
offered critical questions and suggestions at various seminars and meetings where some of the data
and ideas in this study were presented: a faculty seminar at the St. Paul Seminary/School of Divinity

of the College of St. Thomas (spring 1985), a lecture at the University of Winnipeg (fall 1985), the
Upper Midwest meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (spring 1986), a graduate seminar of
Abraham Malamat at the Hebrew University (spring 1987), and the Old Testament Colloquium at
Conception Seminary College (winter 1989). Some of the material in this manuscript was presented
at national meetings of the Catholic Biblical Association (summer 1988) and the Society of Biblical
Literature (fall 1988). I am gratified that my paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature’s
1988 Annual Meeting was awarded the Mitchell Dahood Memorial Prize, and I wish to thank
Doubleday for its sponsorship of the prize. My profound thanks go to all of these groups and the
scholars who belong to them. I am also grateful to the American Academy of Religion for providing
funding for the preparation of the book’s indexes.

I wish to make special mention of my teachers of matters Canaanite and Israelite: Frank Cross,
Aloysius Fitzgerald, Jonas Greenfield, Marvin Pope, Franz Rosenthal, and Robert Wilson. Their
written works, their teaching, and my discussions with them have often aided my efforts to grasp the
nature of Israelite religion. Their command of the ancient world of Israel has guided and inspired
me. The specific debt I owe Frank Cross is clearly marked in chapters 1 and 2. My debt to Marvin
Pope is especially manifest in chapter 5 and generally reflected in the use of the Ugaritic texts. I
hasten to add that I alone am responsible for the views expressed in this volume.

My wife, Liz, and our children, Benjamin (now four) and Rachel (now two), have lived with my
pursuit of Israelite religion. I thank them for their patience and love. As I seemed lost sometimes in
a faraway time and place, my family always made me feel the goodness of this world. This work is
dedicated to my father, Donald E. Smith; I do not have words sufficient to express my love for him.

AB

AHw

AION
ALASP

AnBib

ANET
AnOr
AOAT
ASOR
AThANT
BA
BASOR
BBB
BDB

BH

BiOr
BKAT
BN
BSOAS
BZAW

CBQ
CBQMS
CIS

ConBOT
CRAIBL

DDD

DISO

DJD

EAEHL

Emar

EncJud

Abbreviations and Sigla

Anchor Bible.

D. N. Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1992.

W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden:

O. Harrassowitz, 1959-81.

Annali dell'istituto orientali di Napoli,

Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und
Mesopotamiens.

Analecta biblica.

J. B. Pritchard, ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. 2d ed.
Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969.

J. B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 3d ed.
Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969.

Analecta Orientalia.

Alter Orient und Altes Testament.

A. Cowley. Aramaic Papyrus of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1923; reprinted ed., Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967.
American Schools of Oriental Research.

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments.

Biblical Archaeologist.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

Bonner biblische Beiträge.

F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
Biblical Hebrew.

Bibliotheca Orientalis,

Biblische Kommentar: Altes Testament.

Biblische Notizen.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies.
Beihefte zur ZAW,

L J Gelb et al. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956—.

Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series.

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris: E Reipublicae
Typographeo, 1881-.

Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament.

Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
Cahiers de la Revue Biblique.

A. Herdner. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques
découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Mission de
Ras Shamra 10. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963.
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Ed. K. van der
Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2d extensively
revised edition. Leiden/Boston/Kóln: Brill; Grand Rapids/
Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1999.

C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer. Dictionnaire des inscriptions
sémitiques de l'ouest. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.

English in Revised Standard Version (where citation differs
from BH text).

El Amarna texts cited according to W. L. Moran. Les Lettres
d'El-Amarna. Translated by D. Collon and H. Cazelles.
Littératures anciennes du proche-orient 13. Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 1987,

M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern, eds. Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Eretz Israel.

D. Arnaud, Recherches au pays d'Astata. Emar 6. Volume 3:
Textes sumeriennes et accadiens. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur
les Civilizations, 1986.

Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter, 1973,

FRLANT

GKC

840

HSM
HSS

ICC
IDB

IDBSup

IE]
IOS
JANES
JAOS
JBL
JCS
JIS
JNES
JNWSL
JPOS
JQR
JSOT
JSOTSup
JSS
KAI

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments.

E. Kautsch and A. E. Cowley, eds. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar
2d English ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.

Handbuch zum Alten Testament.

Handbuch der Orientalistik.

Handkommentar zum Alten Testament.

Harvard Semitic Monographs.

Harvard Semitic Studies.

Harvard Theological Review.

International Critical Commentary.

G, A. Buttrick et al., eds. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

K. Crim et al., eds. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplement. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.

Israel Exploration Journal.

Israel Oriental Studies.

Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society.

Journal of the American Oriental Society.

Journal of Biblical Literature.

Journal of Cuneiform Studies.

Journal of Jewish Studies.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages.

Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society.

Jewish Quarterly Review.

Journal for the Society of Old Testament.

Journal for the Society of Old Testament, Supplement Series.
Journal of Semitic Studies.

H. Donner and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische
Inschriften. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1964-68,

M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform
Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places.
ALASP 8. Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995.

Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient.

Septuagint.

Mari Annales Recherches Interdisciplinaires,

Masoretic Text.

New American Bible.

Orbis biblicus et orientalis.

OLP
OTL
OTPs

OTS
PE

PEQ
PRU II

PRU IH

PRU IV

PRU VI

RB

RSF
RSO

SBLDS
SBLMS
SEL

TA
UBL
UF

Ug V

VTSup

wo

ZAH

ZDMG
ZDPV
1QIsa*

.a—

ሃ፦

Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica,

Old Testament Library.

J. H. Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.
2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985.
Oudtestamentische Studien.

K. Mras, ed. Eusebius Werke, vol. 8, part 1, Die Praeparatio
evangelica. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954.

Palestine Exploration Quarterly.

C. E. A. Schaeffer. Le Palais royale d'Ugarit 2. Mission de Ras
Shamra 7. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Librairie C.
Klincksieck, 1957,

J. Nougayrol. Le Palais royale d'Ugarit 3: Texts accadiens et
hourrites des Archives Est, Ouest et Centrales. Mission de Ras
Shamra 6, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Librairie C.
Klincksieck, 1955.

J. Nougayrol, Le Palais royale d'Ugarit 4: Textes accadiens des
Archives Sud (Archives internationales). Mission de Ras
Shamra 9. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956.

J. Nougayrol. Le Palais royale d'Ugarit 6. Mission de Ras
Shamra 12. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Librairie C.
Klincksieck, 1970.

Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie orientale.

Revue biblique,

Répertoire d'épigraphie sémitiques. Paris: La commission du
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, 1900—.

Field number of the Mission de Ras Shamra.

Revisti di Studi Fenici.

Ras Shamra-Ougarit.

Revised Standard Version.

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series.

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series.

Studi epigrafici e linguistici.

Tel Aviv.

Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur.

Ugarit-Forschungen.

J. Nougayrol et al. Ugaritica V: Nouveaux textes accadiens,
hourrites et ugaritiques des Archives et Bibliothéques privées
d'Ugarit, commentaires des textes historiques. Mission de Ras
Shamra 16. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/P. Geuthner, 1968.
Vetus Testamentum.

Vetus Testamentum, Supplements.

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament.

Welt des Orients.

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie.

Zeitschrift für Althebraistik.

Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.

Zeitschrift für Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina- Vereins.

M. Burrows, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery.
New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research,
1950. Plates 1-54. F. M. Cross et al., eds. Scrolls from Qumran
Cave 1: The Great Isaiah Scroll, the Order of the Community,
the Pesher to Habakkuk. From photographs by J. C. Trever.
Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
and the Shrine of the Book, 1972. Pages [13]-[123].

Reconstructed letter(s) in lacuna or implied in translation.
Restored letter(s).

Unattested form or indication of root.

Terms in poetic parallelism.

Introduction

1. The Question of Understanding Israelite Religion

There has been and is much disagreement among theologians about the god honored among the
Hebrews.

The view expressed in the epigraph is as true today as it was when Lydus, a Greek of the sixth
century A.D., wrote these words.28 The role of Yahweh within Israelite religion was an important
area of inquiry within biblical studies throughout most of the twentieth century. During this century,
the understanding of Yahweh has been shaped strongly by the study of Canaanite deities. The title of
a significant work in the field of Israelite religion, W. F. Albright’s Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan,2 echoed in the subtitle of this present work, reflects the central place that various
“Canaanite” deities have long held in the discussion of Israelite monotheism, which may be defined
as the worship and belief in Yahweh and disbelief in the reality of other deities. The study of
Canaanite deities in connection with Yahweh was inspired largely by the discovery of numerous
ancient texts in the Levant, especially the many Ugaritic tablets discovered since 1929 at Ras
Shamra on the coast of Syria. The Ugaritic texts, dating to the second half of the second millennium
B.C., have provided extensive information about the religion of the Canaanites, the neighbors of
Israel whom legal and prophetic texts in the Bible roundly condemn. Thanks to the Ugaritic texts,
scholars finally have a native Canaanite source to help reconstruct the relationship between
Canaanite and Israelite religion.

The Ugaritic mythological texts largely feature the deities El, the aged and kindly patriarch of the
pantheon; his consort and queen mother of the divine family, Asherah; the young storm-god and
divine warrior, Baal; his sister, Anat, likewise a martial deity; and finally, the solar deity. Scholars
of religion have frequently assumed that because these deities were Canaanite, they were not
Israelite. According to this view, Israel had always been essentially monolatrous; Israel worshiped
only Yahweh, although it did not deny the existence of other deities. While Israel could tolerate
other peoples' worship of their deities, Yahweh was ultimately the most powerful deity in the
cosmos. Accordingly, Exodus 15:11 asks, *Who is like you among the gods, O Yahweh?" It was
Israel's monolatry that led to the monotheism just before and during the Exile (587-539), when
Israel explicitly denied the power of all other deities. Whatever influence other deities manifested in
ancient, monolatrous Israel, scholars often considered them syncretistic, peripheral, ephemeral, or
part of Israel’s “popular religion” and not its “official religion.” Israel was essentially monolatrous
despite the threat other deities presented.

This view of Israelite religion has been expressed in part or in full by European, American, and
Israeli scholars with otherwise widely diverging views, including W. F. Albright, Y. Kaufmann, H.
Ringgren, G. Fohrer, G. W. Ahlstrém, and J. Tigay.2! This historical perspective on Israelite
religion derives largely from biblical historiography manifest in passages such as Exodus 23:23-24
and Judges 3:1-7 (cf. Jer. 2:11). Exodus 34:11-16 provides an extensive example of this view:

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the
Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Take heed to yourself,
lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, lest it
become a snare in the midst of you. You shall break down their altars, and break their pillars,
and cut down their asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for Yahweh, whose name is
jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when
they play the harlot after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and one invites you, you eat of
his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters play the harlot
after their gods and make your sons play the harlot after their gods.

The passage asserts four points about Israel. First, Israel’s ethnic identity was originally separate
from other peoples of the land. Second, Israel was not originally among the peoples in the land.
Third, specific cultic objects were alien to Israel. Finally, Yahweh was the only deity of Israel. Some
scholarly works have used these biblical claims as elements in their historical reconstructions of

Israelite religion. Syncretism of Israelite religion with Canaanite religion remains a historical
reconstruction prevalent among biblical scholars. Beyond this scholarly consensus, there has been
wide disagreement. Some scholars, such as Y. Kaufmann and J. H. Tigay,i2? argue that neither Baal
nor Asherah was hardly a deity in Israel. Other scholars, such as G. W. Ahlstróm, H. Ringgren, and

G. Fohrer,!3 vigorously defend the biblical witness to Israelite worship of Baal and Asherah.

The category of syncretism continues to affect the approach to the issues surrounding deities in
ancient Israel. Syncretism, the union of religious phenomenon from two historically separate
systems or cultures, remains a standard way of characterizing Israelite interest in deities other than
Yahweh, and de-emphasizes the importance of Israelite worship of other deities and practices
forbidden in the Bible. For example, K. Spronk relegates practices pertaining to the dead forbidden
in the Bible to the realm of “popular religion” and claims that “popular religion” was syncretistic,
allowing the influences of Canaanite practices in a way that "official religion" did not permit. This
historical reconstruction overlooks the difficulties of historically defining the nature of “official
religion."34 Similarly, J. Tigay, largely depending on the evidence of divine elements in proper
names, has followed in the footsteps of Y. Kaufmann in arguing that Israel was essentially
monotheistic, or at least monolatrous, during the period of the monarchy (1000-587) and that
Israelites hardly worshiped Asherah at all and Baal but briefly. To show that Israel was essentially
monotheistic, Tigay cites the overwhelming preponderance of proper names with Yahweh as the
divine or theophoric element and the paucity of personal names with theophoric elements other than

Yahweh's name. 125

The distribution of “theophoric” elements — that is, forms of divine names — in proper names
lends credence, however, only to the notion that Yahweh was Israel’s most popular god, its national
deity. There is more to the evidence than proper names, which, however suggestive, are notoriously
difficult to assess for historical purposes. The giving of names was subject to conventions governed
by factors other than religious concerns. Indeed, as D. Pardee has observed,!“° the names of deities
contained in proper names are little proof of devotion to those deities. For example, Ugaritic texts
rarely, if ever, have proper names with the theophoric element of the goddess Asherah ('"atrt). 37
However, Ugaritic ritual texts indicate this goddess was venerated at ancient Ugarit. Similarly,
although Tannit was the most popular goddess in the Punic west, Punic names likewise rarely
contain fnt as a theophoric element. 4% In general, proper names serve as reliable evidence of
religious conditions only when used in conjunction with other information.

While many parameters of the discussion of Israelite religion have remained the same since
Albright's Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, there has been a great deal of change. The more than
twenty years since the publication of Albright's book have witnessed major epigraphic and
archaeological discoveries. For the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (ca. 1950-1200), the ongoing
publication of the Mari letters and Ugaritic texts continue to provide new information bearing on
Canaanite religion. For instance, a recently published letter from the city of Mari on the Euphrates
River helps to illuminate the political function of storm imagery of Baal at Ugarit and of Yahweh in
Israel. New tablets from ancient Emar, modern Meskene in Syria, also provide some data regarding
Canaanite religion in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1200). New Iron Age (ca. 1200-587) data
include discoveries both within and outside Israel. Inscriptions from Deir ‘Alla, a Transjordian site
located on the Jordan River north of Jericho, lend insights into the religion of Transjordan. The
Aramaic version of Psalm 20 in Demotic, a late form of Egyptian, provides information about Baal,
among other deities. The Kuntillet ‘Ajrid and Khirbet el-Qóm inscriptions furnish new texts about
the asherah forbidden in the Bible. Many scholars have considered the references to the asherah in
these inscriptions as evidence of Asherah as an Israelite goddess. The excavations at Carthage have
transformed scholarly understanding of child sacrifice in Phoenician and Israelite religion. The
recently discovered iconography from Pozo Moro in Spain perhaps provides depictions of the Punic
cult of child sacrifice. The growing body of Phoenician and Transjordian inscriptions has helped to
focus thinking on the nature of the religions of Israel’s immediate neighbors. The Dead Sea Scrolls
continue to supply new text-critical readings of important biblical passages. Nonbiblical writings of
the Dead Sea Scroll community have been published. These texts reflect religious notions with roots
in the Late Bronze or Iron Age, and at some points the texts supply new information about these
notions in biblical tradition. A wide variety of archaeological discoveries continues to add important
information to the historical record of Israel’s culture. In short, the data illuminating the religion of
Israel have changed substantially in the last twenty years, and they have helped to produce four
major changes in scholarly perspective that inform the present work.

The most significant change involves Israel's cultural identity. Despite the long regnant model
that the “Canaanites” and Israelites were people of fundamentally different culture, archaeological
data now cast doubt on this view. The material culture of the region exhibits numerous common
points between the Israelites and “Canaanites” in the Iron I period (ca. 1200-1000). The record
would suggest that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with, and derived from, “Canaanite”
culture. (Scholars call the preceding culture “Canaanite” because the Bible refers to it with this
term, but this biblical term may be in part a “cover-all” term for the various people in the land.) As
noted below in chapter 1, the extrabiblical text from Egypt known as the Merneptah stele also
distinguishes Israel and Canaan. In short, Israelite culture was largely “Canaanite” in nature. Given
the information available, one cannot maintain a radical cultural separation between “Canaanites”
and Israelites for the Iron I period. To be sure, the early history of Israel was extremely complex,
and establishing ethnic continuity or discontinuity is impossible for this period. Some distinctions
probably existed among the various groups inhabiting the highlands and valleys and coastal regions
in Israel’s earliest history; information about them is largely unavailable at present. The first section
of chapter | focuses on the development of Israelite culture from the larger “Canaanite” culture. The
remainder of this study focuses on one specific area of this cultural continuum, namely, the literary
and religious motifs from Israelite’s “Canaanite” heritage that bear on the development of Israelite
monolatry.

The change in the scholarly understanding of early Israel’s culture has led to the second major
change in perspective, which involves the nature of Yahwistic cult. With the change in perspective
concerning Israel’s “Canaanite” background, long-held notions about Israelite religion are slowly
eroding. Baal and Asherah were part of Israel’s “Canaanite” heritage, and the process of the
emergence of Israelite monolatry was an issue of Israel’s breaking with its own “Canaanite” past
and not simply one of avoiding “Canaanite” neighbors. Although the biblical witness accurately
represented the existence of Israelite worship of Baal and perhaps of Asherah as well, this worship
was not so much a case of Israelite syncretism with the religious practices of its “Canaanite”
neighbors, as some biblical passages depict it, as it was an instance of old Israelite religion. If
syncretism may be said to have been involved at all, it was a syncretism of various religious
traditions and practices of Israelites. In short, any syncretism was largely a phenomenon within
Israelite culture. In early Israel, the cult of Yahweh generally held sway. However, this statement
does not fully characterize pre-exilic Israelite religion as a whole. Rather, Israelite religion
apparently included worship of Yahweh, El, Asherah, and Baal.

The shape of this religious spectrum in early Israel changed, due in large measure to two major
developments; the first was convergence, and the second was differentiation.3? Convergence
involved the coalescence of vari-ous deities and/or some of their features into the figure of Yahweh.
This development began in the period of the Judges and continued during the first half of the
monarchy. At this point, El and Yahweh were identified, and perhaps Asherah no longer continued
as an identifiably separate deity. Features belonging to deities such as El, Asherah, and Baal were
absorbed into the Yahwistic religion of Israel. This process of absorption is evident in the poetic
compositions that a number of scholars consider to be the oldest stratum of Israel’s literature 14°
From a linguistic perspective,!*! these poems, including Genesis 49, Judges 5, 2 Samuel 22 (=
Psalm 18), 2 Samuel 23:1-7, and Psalms 29 and 68, appear to be older than the poetic compositions
in the prophetic books and therefore date at least to the first half of the monarchy; some of them
may be older. Judges 5, for example, suggests a premonarchic setting. In these poetic
compositions, titles and characteristics originally belonging to various deities secondarily accrued to

Yahweh.

Furthermore, if the prophetic critiques of Elijah and Hosea include credible historical
information, then Baal was accepted within Israel by Israelites. What the prophets fail to mention is
how deities functioned in monarchic Israel. Israelite monolatry developed through conflict and
compromise between the cults of Yahweh and other deities. Israelite literature incorporated some of
the characteristics of other deities into the divine personage of Yahweh. Polemic against deities
other than Yahweh even contributed to this process. For although polemic rejected other deities,
Yahwistic polemic assumed that Yahweh embodied the positive characteristics of the very deities it
was condemning.

The second major process involved differentiation of Israelite cult from its “Canaanite” heritage.
Numerous features of early Israelite cult were later rejected as “Canaanite” and non-Yahwistic. This
development apparently began first with the rejection of Baal worship in the ninth century,
continued in the eighth to sixth centuries with legal and prophetic condemnations of Baal worship,

the asherah, solar worship, the high places, practices pertaining to the dead, and other religious
features. The two major developments of convergence and differentiation shaped the contours of the
distinct monotheism that Israel practiced and defined in the Exile (ca. 587-538) following the final
days of the Judean monarchy. Chapter 1 discusses convergence in early ancient Israelite religion in
connection with the deities El, Baal, and Asherah. Chapter 2, section 4, illustrates how the martial
imagery associated with the goddess Anat was assimilated to Yahweh, although the goddess herself
makes no appearance in Israelite texts; in this case, convergence of imagery is indicated, although
there is no issue of the cult of this goddess in ancient Israel. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 present examples
of both convergence and differentiation in ancient Israel. In these chapters, Baal, the symbol of the
asherah, and solar imagery are seen as subject to modification to the cult of Yahweh; varying
degrees of convergence or assimilation to the cult of Yahweh can be discerned. All of these three
phenomena also reflect the later development of differentiation. As old Canaanite/Israelite features,
Baal and the asherah were perceived as non-Yahwistic and therefore non-Israelite. Chapter 5
examines some cultic practices also subject to differentiation: high places, practices pertaining to the
dead, and the mlk sacrifice. High places and practices pertaining to the dead, originally part of
ancient Israel’s heritage, were criticized as non-Yahwistic.

The third shift in perspective involves the role of the monarchy (ca. 1000-587) in the processes of
convergence and differentiation. The monarchy fostered the inclusion of various deities, or their
features, into the cult of Yahweh“? The development of a national religion and a national god did
not exclude other deities; indeed, at times they were encouraged. The national or state religions in
Mesopotamia and Egypt tolerated other deities; moreover, these religions incorporated the features
of various deities into the cult of the state deity, thereby exalting the main deity and the state’s own
identity. As one example of incorporation, the traits of numerous deities were attributed to Marduk,
the god of Babylon, not only in the fifty names that he receives at the end of Enuma Elish, but also
in the characterizing of over a dozen deities as aspects of Marduk in a small god list4“4 Assur, the
god of the city-state by the same name, was depicted with the iconography of other deities.
Similarly, Amun-Re, the divine champion of New Kingdom Egypt, received the attributes of
Egypt’s more traditional chief deities 45 A comparable process might be seen at work in monarchic
Israel. For examples of toleration, one may appeal to either Solomon’s concessions to the gods of
his foreign wives (1 Kings 11:5, 7-8) or Ahab’s sponsorship of Phoenician Baal worship (1 Kings
17-19). In the first half of its existence, the monarchy fostered some features of convergence in
exalting Yahweh as the national god. By this exaltation, Yahweh evidently acquired titles and traits
originally belonging to other deities.

Moreover, royal religion was both conservative and innovative. It incorporated practices
traditional in popular religion, such as the cult of Baal, the symbol of the asherah, high places, and
practices pertaining to the dead. During the second half of the monarchy, religious programs
patronized by the Judean kings Hezekiah and Josiah contributed to the differentiation of Israelite
religion from its “Canaanite” past. Centralization of cult and criticism of various cultic practices
reflect substantial changes in royal religious policies following the fall of the northern kingdom.
Despite the roles the monarchy played in the development of Israelite monotheism, the monarchy
has been perceived as an institution hostile to “pure” Yahwistic cult. If the condemnations in the
books of Kings are to be believed, the monarchs of Israel were the most guilty in tolerating and
sometimes even importing deities and religious practices allegedly alien to Yahwism. While this
viewpoint is partially true, it is partially misleading. The monarchy was responsible for some of the
developments leading to the eventual emergence of monotheism. The monarchy generally
maintained a special relationship with Yahweh; Yahweh was the national god and patron of the
monarchy. Israelite “service” (*‘bd) only to Yahweh in the monarchic period eventually developed
into a notion of universal service to Yahweh.“ Though monotheism was ultimately a product of the
Exile, some developments leading to it are evident in a variety of religious expressions dating to the
monarchy. Royal influence is abundantly manifest in the political use of storm imagery, which
chapter 2, section 3, emphasizes. The royal setting of the asherah is discussed in chapter 3, section
1. Solar imagery in ancient Israel was perhaps in part a royal phenomenon, as explored in chapter 4.
Other features in Israelite religion, though not royal in origin, were tolerated by the monarchy and
sometimes incorporated into the royal cult; high places and practices pertaining to the dead,
discussed in chapter 5, belong to this category.

One caveat regarding the historical reconstruction of the monarchy’s role in Israel’s religion
deserves comment. Because the Hebrew Bible received its fundamental formation in the city of
Jerusalem, the biblical information pertaining to royal religious policy derives largely from the

southern kingdom. As a result, it is not possible to provide a balanced view of the religious practices
of the northern monarchy except in those cases that held importance for southern tradents. The
institution of bull iconography by Jeroboam I in the cities of Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-30) and
the royal patronization of the cult of Phoenician Baal by Ahab and his Tyrian wife, Jezebel (1 Kings
17-19), evidently appeared in biblical books produced in the southern capital because these
practices contained evidence of the northern kingdom’s apostasy. Many of the religious practices
studied in the following chapters appear to be features general to both kingdoms (including the
asherah, the high places, and religious customs pertaining to the dead) or specific to Judah (such as
solar imagery for Yahweh). Religious contributions made by the monarchy examined in this study
are thus often decidedly Judean in character.

The fourth change in outlook reflects the tremendous interest expressed in goddesses in Israelite
religion. As the title of Albright’s Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan illustrates, goddesses have not
featured nearly as prominently as gods in the secondary literature pertaining to ancient Israel. This
is due to the relative paucity of primary material bearing on goddesses in ancient Israel. The features
of the gods, El and Baal, are more frequently attested in biblical descriptions of Yahweh than the
imprint of the goddesses, Asherah and Anat. Fortunately, recent interest in ancient goddesses and
their place in Israelite religion has sparked greater scrutiny of the ancient sources for pertinent
information. Furthermore, inscriptions from Kuntillet *Ajrüd and Khirbet el-Qóm (and Ekron,
according to some scholars) furnish further data concerning one goddess, Asherah, or at least her
symbol, the asherah, and have compelled scholars to reexamine the roles of goddesses in Israel. The
goddesses Asherah, Astarte, and Anat are discussed in various parts of the present study. Chapter 1,
section 4, and chapter 3 are devoted to Asherah and her symbol, the asherah. Chapter 3, section 4,
addresses the evidence concerning Astarte in ancient Israel. Chapter 2, section 4, presents the data
bearing on the literary influence that traditions pertaining to the goddess Anat may have exercised
on some descriptions of Yahweh, although it appears that Anat was not a goddess at any time in
ancient Israel. Other goddesses receive brief notice: the Phoenician figures Tannit and tnt‘Strt, the
biblical “Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 7:18; 44:17-25), and Mesopotamian Ishtar. Chapter 3, section 5,
discusses personified Wisdom (Proverbs 1-9; Ben Sira 1:20; 4:13; 24:12-17; Baruch 4:1), another
female figure often included by scholars in this divine company.

The present work utilizes the recent additions of data and major changes in perspective in order to
illuminate broad trends underlying the development of various features of Israelite religion.
Scholars have long recognized how the Ugaritic corpus provides evidence of the literature, the
mythology, and the religion of the Canaanites, which constituted the background from which
Israelite religion largely emerged. Indeed, many scholarly studies have treated individual aspects of
the Canaanite contributions to Israelite religion. The present work examines the Canaanite and
Israelite data in some detail and inquires into the fundamental relationship between Canaanite and
Israelite religion. The task involves more than drawing parallels between Canaanite and Israelite
texts and iconography. Rather, it requires situating Canaanite deities and their cultic symbols and
imagery within the context of the complex historical development of the cult of Yahweh. Early
Israel initially witnessed a spectrum of religious worship that included the cults of various
Canaanite deities. Inscriptional and biblical evidence reflects the overwhelming religious hegemony
of Yahweh for nearly all periods of Israelite history. Texts, iconography, archaeology, and other data
further document the complex character of this hegemony over the course of the Iron Age. By the
end of the monarchy much of the spectrum of religious practice had largely disappeared;
monolatrous Yahwism was the norm in Israel, setting the stage for the emergence of Israelite
monotheism./48 As chapters 2 through 5 illustrate, the period of the monarchy produced the
conditions for the gradual development of monotheism. With a view to the information provided in
the first five chapters, chapter 6 offers a historical overview of the development of convergence,
monolatry, and monotheism in ancient Israel. Chapter 7 pre-sents some major historical and
theological issues presented by the historical picture drawn in chapter 6. The information contained
in this study illustrates the complex factors involved in the emergence of Israelite monotheism, one
of the greatest contributions of ancient Israel to Western civilization.

2. Presuppositions in This Study

Before presenting the historical data bearing on the development of the cult of Yahweh, it may be
valuable to state at the outset some of the methodological presuppositions inherent in this
investigation“? The most important assumptions regard the nature of the Bible. The Bible, the
main source for the history of ancient Israel, is not a history book in the modern sense. Nonetheless,
the Bible contains much information about history, and indeed the books running from Joshua
through 2 Chronicles may rightly be called the works of ancient Israelite historians. As B. Halpern
comments, the authors of these biblical books were no less historians than Herodotus or
Thucydides.12 The biblical historians presented a picture of ancient Israel based on information that
they viewed as historically true. There are other similarities between the historiography of the
ancient biblical authors and that of modern scholars of Israelite religion. Both ancient and modern
scholars have tried to identify the periods to which the various parts belong; both sift through all the
pieces of biblical books to assess the historical nature and accuracy of the information contained in
them. Both ancient and modern scholars have attempted to arrange information before them in
chronological order and to narrate accordingly a history of Israel. Modern scholars attempt to
arrange biblical books and the blocks of material within them in order so as to understand various
periods of Israel’s history. Like the ancient scribes of Israel, modern scholars also bring other data to
bear on interpreting the history of Israel. They incorporate sources or material from other genres of
literature or other sources to enable their history writing. Like modern historians, biblical writers
provided background information from time to time (e.g., 1 Sam. 28:3; 1 Kings 18:3b; 2 Kings
9:14b-15a; 15:12) or “historical” explanations of the events that they describe (e.g., 2 Kings 13:5-6;
17:7-23). Biblical and modern authors alike have supplied footnotes for their studies. The difference
is that biblical authors incorporated their footnotes into their text (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19,29; 15:7, 23,
31; 16:14, 20; 22:45; 2 Kings 1:18; 10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 28; 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36;
16:19; 20:20; 21:17; 23:28).

There are, however, major differences between the historiography of the Bible and modern
historiography. In rendering a picture of ancient Israel, modern historians customarily avoid the
heavily theological interpretations of events that lace biblical historiography. At the same time, one
must recognize that like the ancient historians of Israel, modern historians investigating biblical
history often have a personal, theological interest in their subject, even if they attempt to maintain a
critical distance from the subject. Indeed, the research of modern scholars is dictated in large
measure by both the concern with historical accuracy and scholars’ religious interest in the biblical
record. Modern scholars are sensitive to the different types of texts included in the Bible and their
separate histories. They have recognized how unevenly biblical material is distributed over the
history of ancient Israel. The sources for the years from the fall of the northern kingdom (ca. 722)
down to the fall of the southern kingdom (ca. 587) heavily outweigh the sources for either the
period of the Judges (ca. 1200-1000) or the initial stages of the monarchy (ca. 1000-722). As a
result, much more is known about the late monarchy than either the period of the Judges or the first
half of the monarchy. Moreover, the bulk of the data derives from the southern kingdom, and
therefore there are great gaps in information regarding the northern kingdom. Besides large gaps in
primary data, there are other problems. The historical reconstruction drawn in the following
chapters is complicated further by the long time frame and the culturally and topographically
diverse areas from which the data derive. For example, the northern and southern kingdoms
exhibited many cultural divergencies in pottery, tomb types, language, and social institutions.
Further regional differences within the northern and southern kingdoms are even more difficult to
grasp, since there is little information available for such specific regional features. Finally,
transitions between periods based on the archaeological record remain obscure; they were far more
complex than the textual record indicates.1*! Indeed, A. Faust has noted that despite long-term
continuities, the eleventh to early tenth century witnessed some break in material culture as well as
significant rural highland abandonment. 32

After testing the historical setting of biblical passages, biblical scholars study the information
provided by various passages for potential interrelationships. Often such relationships are unclear,
tenuous, or nonexistent. This stage of investigation resembles working with a puzzle that is missing

many or most of its pieces..53 Worse yet, scholars do not know how many pieces there are. It is

clear that many or probably most of the pieces are missing, but there is no way to verify the extent
of the gaps in data. Commentators try to overcome these limitations by consulting other sources:
archaeology, iconography, and inscriptions. These sources suffer from many of the same limitations
found in the biblical record, however. From a synthesis of all these sources, a partial picture of
ancient Israel emerges.

Studying Israelite religion involves recognizing the character of ancient religion manifest in the
biblical record. This study often focuses on large-scale developments and examines religion in its
institutional expressions, as the biblical record provides information mostly about Israel’s
institutions — religious, social, and royal. For many people today, religion is a private matter kept
separate from politics. In striking contrast, religion depicted in the Hebrew Bible is primarily not a
private matter but a communal one, a national one, with major social and political implications. The
Torah or Pentateuch, consisting of the first five books of the Bible, relates Israel’s national origins
as well as the legal, social, and cultic norms by which Israelites were called to live. The narrative
books of Joshua through 2 Chronicles provide a national history down to the fall of the southern
kingdom. The prophetic books detail religious problems with the northern or southern kingdom as a
whole, though sometimes focusing on the religious problems among specific groups of people. The
wisdom books and other works of the Writings (Ketubim) offer instruction in everyday norms and
the difficulties of Israelite existence. The Bible often presents a general picture of ancient Israel and
its religion. The present work often depends on this sort of picture insofar as it relies on correlating
religious features with developments within political and social institutions.

There are not only problems with the historical record, but also difficulties with modern methods
and perspectives. In the analysis of the available data, conscious and unconscious assumptions are
made. Furthermore, presenting data inevitably involves making choices. The examination of
Israelite religion in the present work has concentrated more on the literary data than on
archaeological information. Because contemporary interests dictate the subjects of some parts of
this study, the data are inevitably shaped by contemporary considerations. Monotheism is not only a
question for the scholarly investigation of ancient Israel; ancient Israelite monotheism continues to
elicit interest among adherents to Judaism and Christianity, two of the great monotheistic traditions
of today. Similarly, renewed interest in the Northwest Semitic goddesses and in gender language
applied to Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible affects the treatment of these historical issues in chapters 1
and 3.

The study of Israelite religion often involves studying practices more than credal beliefs because
the Bible more frequently stresses correct practices than correct beliefs or internal attitudes.
Christian scholars, however, tend to focus more on beliefs or internal attitudes because Christian
theology has often emphasized this aspect of religion. The study of Israelite monotheism is
complicated by this factor, as monotheism has usually been defined as a matter of belief in one deity
whereas monolatry has been understood as a matter of practice, specifically, the worship of only one
deity, sometimes coupled with a tolerance for other peoples’ worship of their deities. However, if
ancient Israelite religion is to be viewed primarily as a matter of practice, then the modern
distinction between monotheism and monolatry is problematic. 24 Nonetheless, the distinction is
retained in this study for two reasons. First, the appearance of both monolatry and monotheism
remains a matter of current interest. Second, the distinction between the two phenomena emerged
within Israelite religion.

Finally, the modern study of Israelite religion considers both what some biblical sources consider
“normative” and what appears to be outside the norms set by biblical laws or prophetic criticisms.
Although the Bible and the religious claims made in it are entirely relevant to the task of
reconstructing the history of Israelite religion, they do not represent the sum of Israelite faith in
Yahweh. All religious data, including the Bible, inscriptions, iconography, and other archaeological
data, are pertinent to the attempt to understand the religion of ancient Israel. The notion of an
essence of a religion apart from the sum total of a people’s religious beliefs, words, and actions
constitutes a secondary abstraction. When expressions about a religious essence of ancient Israel are
based on biblical statements about religious norms, the expressions represent statements of personal
faith and not historical description. Biblical statements and sometimes contemporary claims about
religious syncretism constitute one type of attempt to make distinctions between a normative,
religious essence of Israel, on the one hand, and illegitimate or non-Israelite practices infecting
Israelite religion, on the other. Although it is historically true that some practices were secondarily
incorporated into the religion of Israel from Israel’s neighbors, other practices classified as being the

result of syncretism belonged to Israel's ancient religious heritage. Both original and borrowed
features constitute legitimate subjects of historical inquiry. Ancient Israelite religion included both
officially sanctioned practices and practices not sanctioned by various authorities; both official and
popular religion belong to any historical description of Israelite religion. The historical enterprise
examines the historical limitations and presuppositions of biblical claims. The task of reconstructing
the cult of Yahweh includes biblical clalms and sets them within a wider framework that accounts
for the available information. The data in the attested sources indicate a pluralism of religious
practice in ancient Israel that led sometimes to conflict about the nature of correct Yahwistic
practice. It is precisely this conflict that produced the differentiation of Israelite religion from its
Canaanite heritage during the second half of the monarchy. As a result of this conflict, some
elements of faith appear transformed or muted in the Bible in a variety of ways. Anthropomorphic
descriptions of Yahweh and language of the goddess may constitute examples of this change. Both
were part of Israel’s ancient traditions; both were considerably modified during the process of

differentiation, D$

Because of these considerations about ancient historical evidence and about modern methods
used to reconstruct Israelite religion, the picture presented in the following chapters is necessarily a
partial and subjective one.

CHAPTER 1

Deities in Israel in the Period of the Judges

1. Israel’s “Canaanite” Heritage

Early Israelite culture cannot be separated easily from the culture of “Canaan.” 1 The highlands of
Israel in the Iron Age (ca. 1200-587) reflect continuity with the “Canaanite” (or better, West
Semitic?) culture during the preceding period both in the highlands and in the contemporary cities
on the coast and in the valleys.8 This continuity is reflected in scripts, for one example. Both
linear and cuneiform alphabetic scripts are attested in inscriptions in the highlands as well as in the
valleys and on the coast during both the Late Bronze (ca. 1550-1200) and Iron I (ca. 1200-1000)

periods.* This continuity is visible also in language. Though Hebrew and Canaanite are the

linguistic labels applied to the languages of the two periods in this region, they cannot be easily
distinguished in the Iron I period. For example, most scholars argue that the Gezer Calendar was
written in Hebrew, but E. Y Kutscher labels its language Canaanite.14l Canaanite and Hebrew so
closely overlap that the ability to distinguish them is premised more on historical information than
linguistic criteria..2 The ancient awareness of the close linguistic relationship, if not identity,
between Canaanite and Hebrew is reflected in the postexilic oracle of Isaiah 19:18, which includes
Hebrew in the designation “the language of Canaan” (sépat kéna’an; cf yéhidit, “Judean,” in 2

Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 36:11, 13; 2 Chron. 32:18; Neh. 13:24) 163

Similarly, Canaanite and Israelite material culture cannot be distinguished by specific features in
the judges period. For example, some Iron I (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars as
attested at Giloh represent a pottery tradition continuous with the Late Bronze Age.*% Items such as
the four-room house, collared-rim store jar, and hewn cisterns, once thought to distinguish the
Israelite culture of the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys, are now
attested on the coast, in the valleys, or in Transjordan.1 Both indigenous tradition and influence
from the coast and valleys are represented also in burial patterns. Multiple primary burials in caves
continued in the hill country from the Late Bronze Age throughout the Iron Age. Arcosolia and
bench tombs, two types of rock-cut tombs, are initially attested on the coast, and appeared also in

the highlands in the Iron I period.

The Canaanite (or, West Semitic) background of Israel’s culture extended to the realm of religion.
This is evident from the terminology for cultic sacrifices and personnel. BH sacrificial language
with corresponding terms in Ugaritic and/or Phoenician includes zebah, “slaughtered offering,” a
biblical term applied to sacrifices in the cults of both Yahweh (Gen. 46:1; Exod. 10:25; 18:12; Hos.
3:4; 6:6; 9:4; Amos 5:25) and Baal (2 Kings 10:19, 24; cf. KTU 1.116.1; 1.127; 1.148; KAI 69:12,
14; 74:10); zebah hayyamim, “the annual slaughtered offering” (1 Sam. 1:21; 2:19; 20:6; cf. KAI 26
A IL19-IIE2; C IV:2-5); &élamim, "offering of well-being/greeting"!? (Leviticus 3; cf. KTU
1.105.9; 109; KAI 69:3; 51 obv.:5-6; 120:2); neder, offering of a vow (Numbers 30; Deuteronomy
12; cf. Ugaritic ndr, KTU 1.127.2; cf. mdr, 1.119.30; KAI 155:1; 156; cf. 18:1; 45:1); minhah,
"tribute offering" (Lev. 2:1-16; cf. CIS 14:5; KAT 69:14; 145:12-13); kalil, “holocaust” (Deut.
33:10; Lev. 6:15-16; 1 Sam. 7:9; Ps. 51:21; cf. Deut. 13:17; cf. KTU 1.115.10; KAT 69:3, 5, 7;
74:5).1% Other terms have been viewed as semantic equivalents in Hebrew and Ugaritic. It is
assumed, for example, that BH ‘6/ah (Leviticus 1; cf. judg. 11:30, 39) is semantically equivalent
with Ugaritic Srp (KTU 1.105.9, 15; 1.106.2; 1.109); both denote an offering entirely consumed by
fire. The *ólah sacrifice belonged not only to the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem and elsewhere but
also to the cult of Baal in Samaria (2 Kings 10:24; cf. “lt in KAI 159:8). A ritual of general
expiation was not only an Israelite feature (e.g., Leviticus 16; 17:11; cf. Gen. 32:21 for a noncultic
example); it was also a Ugaritic phenomenon (KTU 1.40).1° Both Ugaritic texts (1.46.1; 1.168.9)
and biblical rituals (Leviticus 4-5) provide for divine forgiveness (*s/hl*sih). This incidence of
highly specialized sacrificial terms suggests a common West Semitic heritage.

Although other terminological parallels between Israelite and Ugaritic and Phoenician texts are
found also in Mesopotamian culture, these links further mark the closely related Israelite and
Canaanite cultures. Biblical names with a Canaanite background for cult personnel include “priest,”
köhen (2 Kings 10:19; cf. KTU 4.29.1; 4.38.1; 4.68.72), “dedicated servants,” nétintm/nétunim

(Num. 3:9; 8:19) and nétinim (Ezra 2:43, 58, 70; 7:7; 8:17, 20; Neh. 3:26, 31; 7:46, 60, 72; 10:29;
11:3, 21; cf. 1 Chron. 9:2; cf. Ugaritic ytnm in KTU 4.93.1), and qadéé, a cultic functionary of some
sort in both Israelite religion (Deut. 23:18 [E 17]; 2 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; 23:7; Job 36:14) and
Ugaritic cult (KTU 1.112.21; 4.29.3; 4.36; 4.38.2; 4.68.73)44 Similarly, BH hakkohén haggadól,
“chief priest” (Lev. 21:10; Num. 35:25-28; Josh. 20:6; 2 Kings 12:11; 22:4, 8; Neh. 3:1, 20; 13:28; 2
Chron. 34:9; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech. 3:1, 8; 6:11 ) compares closely with Ugaritic rb khnm,
“chief of the priests” (KTU 1.6 VI 55-56). Furthermore, the “tent of meeting" ('ohel mó'ed) derived
from Canaanite prototypes (2 Sam. 7:6; KTU 1.4 IV 20-26).1 To be sure, parallels in terminology
do not establish parallels in cultural setting in each of these cases. Yet cultural continuity appears
likely in these instances. It is evident from many areas of culture that Israelite society drew very

heavily from Canaanite culture 4

The evidence of the similarities between Canaanite and Israelite societies has led to a major
change in the general understanding of the relationship between these two societies. Rather than
viewing them as two separate cultures, some scholars define Israelite culture as a subset of
Canaanite culture. There are, however, some Israelite features that are unattested in Canaanite
sources. These include the old tradition of Yahweh’s southern sanctuary, variously called Sinai
(Deut. 33:2; cf. Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9), Paran (Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3), Edom (Judg. 5:4), and Teiman
(Hab. 3:3 and in the Kuntillet *Ajrüd inscriptions ; cf. Amos 1:12; Ezek. 25:13), and Israel's early
tradition of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod. 15:4).L7 Neither of these features appears to be

Canaanite. 28

That Israel in some form was distinguished from Canaan ca. 1200 is clear from an inscribed
monument of the pharaoh Merneptah. This stele dates to the fifth year of the pharaoh’s reign (ca.
1208) and mentions both Israel and Canaan:

The princes are prostrate, saying: “Mercy!”

Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;

Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;

Yanoam is made as that which does not exist;

Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;

Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!

All lands together, they are pacified;

Everyone who is restless, he has been bound. 22

The purpose of this passage was to celebrate Egyptian power over various lands in Syro-
Palestine. Hatti and Hurru stand for the whole region of Syro-Palestine; Canaan and Israel represent
smaller units within the area, and Gezer, Ashkelon, and Yanoam are three cities within the region. In
this hymn to the power of the pharaoh, all these places stand under Egyptian rule. The text
distinguishes between Israel and Canaan, as they constitute two different terms in the text. Some
scholars note that the two terms are further distinguished. The word “Canaan” is written with a
special linguistic feature called a determinative, denoting land. “Israel” is written with the
determinative for people. Drawing historical conclusions from this difference in the scribal use of
the two determinatives has proven problematic. On the one hand, if the determinatives were used
accurately by the Egyptian scribe who wrote this text, then Israel as a people was established by
1200 B.C. On the other hand, some scholars believe that scribes did not use the two different
determinatives consistently in other texts and therefore challenge the accuracy of their use in the
Merneptah stele.120 If the determinatives were used correctly, Israel stands for a people living in the
region of the highlands rather than designating the geographical area of the highlands. In any case,
Israel and Canaan are differentiated in the text, and in some way they represented different entities
to the Egyptian scribe who inscribed the Merneptah stele. Israel was differentiated as early as 1200
from its Canaanite forebears.

Iron I evidence currently at the disposal of scholars presents a dilemma. On the one hand, the
historical understanding of the period has been tremendously enhanced by archaeological
research.!él On the other hand, the data do not answer many of the important questions regarding
early Israel. It is at present impossible to establish, on the basis of archaeological information,
distinctions between Israelites and Canaanites in the Iron I period. The archaeological evidence does
not provide a clear set of criteria for distinguishing an Israelite site from a Canaanite one, although a
collocation of features (e.g., four-room houses, collared-rim store jars, hewn cisterns) in an Iron I

site in the central highlands continues to be taken as a sign of an Israelite settlement. Inscriptional
evidence is likewise of limited help in this regard, since down to the tenth century the languages and
scripts of the epigraphic sources do not provide distinctions between the two cultures.

Biblical evidence is similarly problematic. Though it contains much historical information, the
accuracy of this information is complicated by centuries of textual transmission and interpretation.
Indeed, the narrative material of the Hebrew Bible pertaining to the Iron I period dates largely from
the latter half of the monarchy, removed at least two or three centuries from the events of the Iron I
period that the texts relate. Moreover, in some cases the biblical record complicates
interpretational matters. The difficulty of distinguishing between Israelites and Canaanites is
exacerbated by biblical references to several groups besides Israelites and Canaanites. Gibeonites
(Josh. 9:15; cf. 2 Sam. 21), Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. 27:10; 30:29), Kenites (Judg. 1:16; 4:11; 1 Sam.
27:10; 30:29), the descendants of Rahab (Josh. 6:25), Caleb the Kenizzite (Josh. 14:13-14; 21:12),
and the Canaanite cities of Hepher and Tirzah became part of Israel (cf. Exod. 6:15).183 Presumably
other groups and places were absorbed into Israel as well. Furthermore, other groups are mentioned
as being dispossessed of the land by the Israelites: “Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites,
Amorites, and Jebusites” (Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8). While some of these group names may be
suspect and reflect a later attempt to reconstruct the history of Israel’s early development in the land,
the point that some of them indicate the complex social composition of highlands Israel remains
valid. Finally, current attempts to distinguish Israel from Canaan in the Iron I period are marked by
their own modern limitations. To pose only one difficulty, although Israelite and Canaanite societies
cannot be distinguished on the basis of archaeological evidence,!®4 archaeological features do not
constitute all the criteria for making historical distinctions; even if there were not a single criterion
for establishing clear distinctions based on material culture (and at present there is no such
criterion), some early Israelites may have perceived themselves as radically different from
Canaanites. Information bearing on such perceptions is at present unavailable for the Iron I period,
although it might be inferred from older biblical texts such as Judges 5. From the evidence that is
available, one may conclude that although largely Canaanite according to currently available
cultural data, Israel expressed a distinct sense of origins and deity and possessed largely distinct
geographical holdings in the hill country by the end of the Iron I period. The Canaanite character of
Israelite culture largely shaped the many ways ancient Israelites communicated their religious
understanding of Yahweh. This point may be extended: the people of the highlands who came to be
known as Israel comprised numerous groups, including Canaanites, whose heritage marked every
aspect of Israelite society. In sum, Iron I Israel was largely Canaanite in character.

Israel inherited local cultural traditions from the Late Bronze Age, and its culture was largely
continuous with the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys during the Iron I period. The realm of
religion was no different. Although one may not identify the local deities prior to and during the
emergence of Israel by equating Ugaritic religion with Canaanite religion, the Ugaritic evidence is
pertinent to the study of Canaanite religion since inscriptions from the Late Bronze Age and the Iron
I period in Canaan indicate that the deities of the land included El, Baal, Asherah, and Anat, all
major divinities known from the Ugaritic texts. The proper name ”y”l, “where is El?” is contained in
a twelfth-century inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah, which lies about ten kilometers southeast of
Gaza. The Lachish ewer, dated to the thirteenth century, contains an inscription probably
referring to this goddess: mtn. ¿y [11 /rb]ty “It, “mattan. An offering [to] my [la]dy,’Elat’”!8° The
words, rbt, “lady” (literally, “great one,” marked with a feminine ending) and "t, "goddess," are
regular, though not exclusive, titles of Asherah in the Ugaritic texts, and these epithets in the
Lachish ewer probably refer to her as well. An arrowhead from El-Khadr near Bethlehem dating to
ca. 1100 reads bn “nt, “son of Anat”18 Baal is mentioned in a fifteenth-century Taanach letter and
in a fourteenth-century El-Amarna letter from Tyre (EA 147:13-15).1% The element *b“l occurs also
in an inscription from Lachish,!“ either as divine name or as an element contained in personal
names. Other deities enjoyed cultic devotion in late second millennium Canaan. For example, "b,
the divine ancestral god, and b’/t, “the Lady,” are known from late second millennium inscriptions
from Lachish.J?! Given that Ugaritic and biblical texts attest so many of the same deities, religious
practices, and notions, the Ugaritic texts may be used with caution for religious material in the West
Semitic sphere which Israelite tradition inherited.

According to biblical tradition, these deities continued in various ways during the period of the
Judges within Israel. (While few, if any, of the following texts actually date to the premonarchic
period, they may reflect earlier religious conditions, or at least help to suggest some of the range in
the deities worshiped in premonarchic Israel. The god of Shechem in Judges 9:46 (see 8:33) is

called ‘él bérit, which scholars have identified as a title of El..2 Religious devotion to Asherah
perhaps lies behind Genesis 49:25. The asherah, the symbol named after the goddess Asherah, is
explicitly described in Judges 6:25-26. The word ba’al forms the theophoric element in the biblical
name Jerubbaal (Judg. 6:32; 8:35). Two members of the family of Saul, Eshbaal (1 Chron. 8:33;
9:39) and Meribbaal (1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40), likewise have names containing the element ba “al. Only
one proper name, Shamgar ben Anat (Judg. 5:6), attests to the name of Anat in the period of the
Judges. The lack of either inscriptional or biblical evidence for Anat would suggest the absence of a
cult devoted to her. During the Judges period, the major deities in the territory of Israel included
Yahweh, El, Baal, and perhaps Asherah.

Some scholars have used this evidence to demonstrate that Israel in the period of the Judges was
heavily “syncretistic,” insofar as it incorporated Canaanite elements into an Israelite religion that
was originally non-Canaanite. 9? Indeed, some biblical texts view Israel’s protohistory at Sinai as a
time when Canaanite elements would have been alien to Yahwism. For example, Deuteronomy 32
expresses life in the wilderness in the following terms: “the Lord alone did lead him [Israel], and
there was no foreign god with him” (v. 12; see also w. 8, 17).1% The claim is potentially misleading
on two counts. First, religious elements identified as “Canaanite” were not “syncretistic,” at least
not in the sense that such elements were not original to Israel. The biblical historiography in
Deuteronomy 32 omits any reflection of the fact that Israel's cultural heritage was largely
Canaanite; indeed, it implicitly denies this idea. Second, the evidence that the Canaanite deities, El,
Baal, or Asherah, were the object of Israelite religious devotion separate from the cult of Yahweh in
the period of the Judges is scant. Both of these claims are largely extensions of biblical
historiography: because the historical works of the Bible view the religion of the Judges period in
this way, then some scholars have concluded that the biblical view represents historical reality..2
However, in various ways, El, Baal, and Asherah (or at least the symbol named after her, the
asherah) were integrally related to Yahweh and the cult of this deity during the period of the Judges.

In sum, the Israelites may have perceived themselves as a people different from the Canaanites.
Separate religious traditions of Yahweh, separate traditions of origins in Egypt for at least some
component of Israel, and separate geographical holdings in the hill country contributed to the
Israelites’ sense of difference from their Canaanite neighbors inhabiting the coast and the valleys.
Nonetheless, Israelite and Canaanite cultures shared a great deal in common, and religion was no
exception. Deities and their cults in Iron Age Israel represented aspects of the cultural continuity
with the indigenous Late Bronze Age culture and the contemporary urban culture on the coast and
in the valleys. The examples of El, Baal, and the symbol of the asherah illustrate this continuity for
the period of the Judges.

2. Yahweh and El

The original god of Israel was El. This reconstruction may be inferred from two pieces of
information. First, the name of Israel is not a Yahwistic name with the divine element of Yahweh,
but an El name, with the element, *’é/. This fact would suggest that El was the original chief god of
the group named Israel.12° Second, Genesis 49:24-25 presents a series of El epithets separate from
the mention of Yahweh in verse 18 (discussed in section 3 below). Yet early on, Yahweh is
understood as Israel’s god in distinction to El. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 casts Yahweh in the role of one

of the sons of El, here called ‘elyön.17

When the Most High (“elyón) gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated humanity,

he fixed the boundaries of the peoples

according to the number of divine beings.!28

For Yahweh’s portion is his people,

Jacob his allotted heritage.

This passage presents an order in which each deity received its own nation. Israel was the nation
that Yahweh received. It also suggests that Yahweh, originally a warrior-god from
Sinai/Paran/Edom/Teiman,!2? was known separately from El at an early point in early Israel.209
Perhaps due to trade with Edom/Midian, Yahweh entered secondarily into the Israelite highland
religion. Passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 suggest a literary vestige of the initial assimilation
of Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, into the larger highland pantheism, headed by El; other texts
point to Asherah (El's consort) and to Baal and other deities as members of this pantheon. In time,
El and Yahweh were identified, while Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as warrior-
gods. As the following chapter (section 2) suggests, one element in this competition involved
Yahweh’s assimilation of language and motifs originally associated with Baal.

One indication that Yahweh and El were identified at an early stage is that there are no biblical
polemics against El. At an early point, Israelite tradition identified El with Yahweh or presupposed
this equation.29! It is for this reason that the Hebrew Bible so rarely distinguishes between El and
Yahweh. 22 The development of the name El (’é/) into a generic noun meaning “god” also was
compatible with the loss of El’s distinct character in Israelite religious texts. One biblical text
exhibits the assimilation of the meaning of the word 'e/ quite strongly, namely Joshua 22:22 (cf. Pss.
10:12; 50:1):203

'él "élóhim yhwh God of gods is Yahweh,
el “Elohim yhwh God of gods is Yahweh.

The first word in each clause in this verse reflects the development of the name of the god El into a
generic noun meaning “god.” In this verse the noun forms part of a superlative expression
proclaiming the incomparable divine status of Yahweh. The phrase “god of gods” may be compared
to other superlative expressions of this type in the Bible such as “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Ezra
7:12), the name of the biblical book “Song of Songs” (Song of Songs 1:1), and the opening words of
the first speech in Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanities” (Eccles. 1:2).2%

The priestly theological treatment of Israel’s early religious history in Exodus 6:2-3 identifies the
old god El Shadday with Yahweh. In this passage Yahweh appears to Moses: “And God said to
Moses, ‘I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shadday, but by my
name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.”” This passage reflects the fact that Yahweh
was unknown to the patriarchs. Rather, they worshiped the Canaanite god, El. Inscriptional texts
from Deir ‘Alla, a site north of Jericho across the Jordan River, attest to the epithet shadday. In
these inscriptions the shadday epithet is not applied to the great god, El. The author of Exodus 6:2-3

perhaps did not know of or make this distinction; rather, he identified Yahweh with the traditions of
the great Canaanite god, El. 20

J. Tigay’s recent study of inscriptional onamastica is compatible with the historical reconstruction
of the identification of El with Yahweh in early Israelite tradition.2% Tigay lists all proper names
with theophoric elements. Found in Israelite inscriptions, all dating after the beginning of the
monarchy, are 557 names with Yahweh as the divine element, 77 names with *’/, a handful of
names with the divine component *b‘7, and no names referring to the goddesses Anat or Asherah.
The few proper names with the divine names of Anat and Asherah do not reflect a cult to these
deities; Baal may be an exception. The names with the element of the name of El historically reflect
the identification of Yahweh and El by the time these names may appear in the attested inscriptions.
Just as no cult is attested for Anat (and perhaps Asherah) in Israelite religion, so also there is no
distinct cult attested for El except in his identity as Yahweh.

In Israel the characteristics and epithets of El became part of the repertoire of descriptions of
Yahweh. In both texts and iconography, El is an elderly bearded figure enthroned,” sometimes
before individual deities (KTU 1.3 V; 1.4 IV-V), sometimes before the divine council (KTU 1.2 I),
known by a variety of expressions; this feature is attested also in Phoenician inscriptions (KAI 4:4-
5; 14:9, 22; 26 A III 19; 27:12; cf. KTU 1.4 III 14). In KTU 1.10 III 6 El is called drd<r>, “ageless
one,” and in KTU 1.3 V and 1.4 V, Anat and Asherah both affirm the eternity of his wisdom.29$ His
eternity is also expressed in his epithet, ‘ab ¿nm, “father of years.2% In KTU 1.4 V 3-4 Asherah
addresses El: “You are great, O El, and indeed, wise; your hoary beard instructs you” (rbt "ilm lhkmt
Sbt dqnk Itsrk). Anat’s threats in 1.3 V 24-25 and 1.18 I 11-12 likewise mention El's gray beard.
Similarly, Yahweh is described as the aged patriarchal god (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Isa. 40:28; cf. Ps.
90:10; Isa. 57:15; Hab. 3:6; Dan. 6:26; 2 Esdras 8:20; Tobit 13:6, 10; Ben Sira 18:30), enthroned
amidst the assembly of divine beings (1 Kings 22:19; Isa. 6:1-8; cf. Pss. 29:1-2; 82:1; 89:5-8; Isa.
14:13; Jer. 23:18, 22; Zechariah 3; Dan. 31954 Later biblical texts continued the long tradition of
aged Yahweh enthroned before the heavenly hosts. Daniel 7:9-14, 22, describes a bearded Yahweh
as the “ancient of days,” and “the Most High.” He is enthroned amid the assembly of heavenly
hosts, called in verse 18 “the holy ones of the Most High,” gaddisé '"elyónin (cf. 2 Esdras 2:42-48;
Revelation 7). This description for the angelic hosts derives from the older usage of Hebrew
qédosim, "holy ones," for the divine council (Ps. 89:6; Hos. 12:1; Zech. 14:5; cf. KAI 4:5, 7; 14:9,
22; 27:12). The tradition of the enthroned bearded god appears also in a Persian period coin marked
yhd, “Yehud.” The iconography belongs to a god, apparently Yahweh.

The Canaanite/Israelite tradition of the divine council derived from the setting of the royal
court2/2 and evolved in accordance with the court terminology of the dominant royal power. During
the Israelite monarchy, the imagery of the divine council continued from its Late Bronze Age
antecedents. M. Brettler has observed that the Israelite monarchy also had a distinct impact on some
features of the divine council.24° Roles in the divine council in Canaanite and early Israelite
literature were generally not individuated, but one exception was “the commander of the army of
Yahweh” (sar séba’ yhwh) in Joshua 5:13-15, which, according to Brettler, was based on the
comparable role in the Israelite army (1 Sam. 17:55; 1 Kings 1:19; cf. Judg. 4:7). Similarly, the
divine “destroyer,” mashit, of Exodus 12:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:15 (cf. Isa. 54:16; Jer. 22:7), may
be traced ultimately to the military mashit of 1 Samuel 13:17 and 14:15, perhaps as a class of
fighters personified or individualized and secondarily incorporated into the divine realm.214 The
mashitim appear either singly or as a plurality acting on behalf of their divine Lord. Two of the
mysterious divine figures in Genesis are evidently mashitim, since they apply this very term to
themselves in Gen. 19:13. Other features of the divine council in Israelite literature reflect later
political developments. According to Brettler, mésaret, "servant," applied first to royal officials in
the postexilic period (e.g., 1 Chron. 27:1; 28:1; 2 Chron. 17:19; 22:8; Esther 1:10; 2:2), and
secondarily referred to angels in a postexilic text, Psalm 103:21 (cf. Ps. 104:4).213 Some biblical
innovations in terminology of the heavenly court in the postexilic period may have been modeled on
the court of the reigning Mesopotamian power. The depiction of the satan in Job 1-2 and Zechariah
3 has been traced to neo-Babylonian or Persian bureaucracies. Similarly, J. Teixidor has
suggested that the angelic term, ‘iz; “watcher” (e.g., Dan. 4:10, 14, 20), was based on spies who

watched over the empire on behalf of the Persian ruler.

El and Yahweh exhibit a similar compassionate disposition toward humanity. Like “Kind El, the
Compassionate” (ltpn "0 dp'id), the “father of humanity” Cab ’adm), Yahweh is a “merciful and
gracious god,” 'el-rah, üm wéhannün (Exod. 34:6; Ps. 86:15), and father (Deut. 32:6; Isa.

63:16, 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal. 1:6, 2:10; cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Both El and Yahweh
appear to humans in dream-visions and function as their divine patron.21% Like El (KTU 1.16 V-VI),
Yahweh is a healing god (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kings 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20; cf. personal name,
répa’él, in | Chron. 26:7). Moreover, the description of Yahweh’s dwelling-place as a “tent” ("ohel;
e.g., Pss. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3), called in the Pentateuchal traditions the “tent of meeting” (’ohel
mo ‘éd; Exod. 33:7-11; Num. 12:5, 10; Deut. 31:14, 15) recalls the tent of El, explicitly described in
the Canaanite narrative of Elkunirsa.2!2 The tabernacle of Yahweh has gérasim, usually understood
as “boards” (Exodus 26-40; Num. 3:36; 4:31), while the dwelling of El is called grs, perhaps
“tabernacle” or “pavilion” (KTU 1.2 II 5; 1.3 V 8; 1.4 IV 24; 1.17 V 49). Furthermore, the
dwelling of El is set amid the cosmic waters (KTU 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 6; 1.4 IV 20-22; 1.17 V 47-48), a
theme evoked in descriptions of Yahweh's abode in Jerusalem (Pss. 47:5; 87; Isa. 33:20-22; Ezek.
47:1-12; Joel 4:18; Zech. 14:8).222

The characteristics of Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:6-7 include some motifs that can be traced to
traditional descriptions of El:

Do you thus requite Yahweh,

you foolish and senseless (/o ' hakam) people?

Is he not your father (’abika), who created you (qaneka)
who made you and established you (wayekoneneka)?
Remember the days of old (“ólam),

consider the years of many generations (Senót dór-wadór);
ask your father, and he will show you;

your elders and they will tell you.

As J. C. Greenfield notes, 2! almost every line of this passage contains an element familiar from
descriptions of El, known as “Bull El his Father, El the king who establishes him,” tr “1! 'abh 'il mik
dyknnh (KTU 1.3 V 35-36; 1.4 1 4- 15, etc.). Like El, Yahweh is the father (*’ab) who establishes
(*kwn) and creates (*qny). The verb qny recalls the epithet “El, creator of the earth,” 7 qny "rs.
Second-millennium Canaanite tradition, preserved in a Hittite text, attributes this title to El.222
Genesis 14:19 likewise applies this title to éi ’elyön, itself an old El epithet. The phrase is also
found in a neo-Punic inscription from Leptis Magna in Libya (KAI 129:1). While Deuteronomy
32:6-7 applies some traditional traits of El to Yahweh, it also employs other features of El as a foil
to the people's character, according to Greenfield. The people, for example, are “senseless” (Jo'
hakam), unlike El. Finally, “eternity” (“ólam) evokes El's same epithet, and “the years of many
generations" (Sénót dér-wad6r) echoes El’s title, ‘ab snm, “father of years.”

Like some descriptions of Yahweh, some of Yahweh’s epithets can be traced to those of El.
Traditions concerning the cultic site of Shechem illustrate the cultural process lying behind the
Yahwistic inclusion of old titles of El, or stated differently, the Yahwistic assimilation to old cultic
sites of El. In the city of Shechem the local god was ‘el bérit, “El of the covenant” (Judg. 9:46; cf.
8:33; 9:4). This word "ilbrt appears as a Late Bronze Age title for El in KTU 1.128.14-15.22 In the
patriarchal narratives, the god of Shechem, ‘el, is called ’elöhe yisra’el, “the god of Israel,” and is
presumed to be Yahweh.224 In this case, a process of reinterpretation appears to be at work. In the
early history of Israel, when the cult of Shechem became Yahwistic, it inherited and continued the
El traditions of that site. Hence Yahweh received the title "el bérít, the old title of El. This record
illustrates up to a point how Canaanite/Israelite traditions were transmitted. Israelite knowledge of
the religious traditions of other deities was not due only to contact between Israel and its Phoenician
neighbors in the Iron Age. Rather, as a function of the identification of Yahweh-El at cultic sites of
El such as Shechem and Jerusalem, the old religious lore of a deity such as El was inherited by the
Yahwistic priesthood in Israel. Ezekiel 16:3a proclaims accordingly: “Thus says the Lord God to
Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites.” Israelite inclusion of
Yahweh into the older figure of El was not syncretistic insofar as El belonged to Israel’s original
religious heritage. If syncretism was involved, it was a syncretism of various Israelite notions, and
one that the prophets ultimately applauded. B. Vawter remarks: ”The very fact that the prophets
fought Canaanization would make them advocates of the ‘syncretism’ by which pagan titles were
appropriated to Yahweh.“22° Yet even this “Canaanization,” to use Vawter's term, was part of
Israel’s heritage.

3.Yahweh and Baal

It is assumed sometimes that in the period of the Judges religious devotion to Baal competed with
the cult of Yahweh.22 The basis for this claim is grounded in the criticism that the books of Judges
(2:11-13; 3:7) and 1 Samuel (7:3-4; 12:10) direct against Baal. The story of Gideon in Judges 6
functions as a paradigmatic story designed to illustrate how true Yahwists in the early phase of
Israel’s history eradicated devotion to Baal and Asherah (see w. 25-32). Indeed, in the story
Gideon’s name is changed from Jerubbaal, a name with ba “al as its theophoric element.

The historical picture of Israelite treatment of Baal is difficult to reconstruct. It may be clarified
by distinguishing between the older material and the use that the tradents of the book of Judges
made of this material. Their later viewpoint is embedded in the polemics of Judges 2-3, a secondary
stage of the book, dating probably to the second half of the monarchy.2 Textual hints in the book
of Judges point to the monarchy as the period of redaction (which involved editing and
supplementing received tradition). The final verse of Judges (21:25) relates the period of the Judges
from a monarchist perspective: “in those days there was no king in Israel; each man did what was
right in his own eyes.” It is possible to pinpoint more precisely the time frame for the redaction of
the book of Judges. Judges 18:30 relates the historical development of the priesthood in the tribe of
Dan: “and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the
Danites until the day of the captivity of the land.”222 The temporal phrase, “ad-yóm gelót ha ares,
“until the day of exile of the land,” would refer either to the captivity of the northern kingdom in
722, which included the territory of the tribe of Dan, or less likely the exile of the southern kingdom
in 587. Given the royal perspective of Judges 21:25, the exile of the northern kingdom is evidently
intended. In this case, the redaction of the book of Judges belongs to the eighth century or later. The
later polemics in Judges 2 and 3 function as the initial elements in the cyclic pattern underlying the
structure of many of the Judges stories: the Israelites sin against God, who in turn leaves them prey
to their enemies; the Israelites cry out to God to save them, at which time God sends a judge to

deliver them from their enemies.222

The information about Baal and the asherah in Judges 6 appears to be older, as it is integrated into
the fabric of the story. The older information contained in this chapter was available to tradents and
probably served as the historical source for the later polemics. If this material is older, does it then
attest to Israelite acceptance of Baal and Asherah in the Judges period? The redaction of the later
tradents manifest in Judges 2-3 indicates that they answered this question in the affirmative. Despite
problems with this conclusion, it is in fact a reasonable conclusion, yet it may mask the larger
picture. The tradents assumed that in the Judges period Baal and Asherah were distinctive deities
worshiped by Israelites at expense to the cult of Yahweh. To be sure, worship of the Phoenician
storm-god Baal at the expense of Yahweh’s cult occurred during of the reign of Ahab, yet that does
not appear to have been the case in the time of the Judges. Despite the picture that later tradents
constructed, some older elements, especially the proper names with the element *ba ‘al in Judges 6
and elsewhere may suggest a different situation. The evidence may point to a more complex picture,
in which the cult of the old Canaanite god Baal was deemed tolerable by some Israelites.

The tradents’ treatment of the name of Jerubbaal in Judges 6-7 exposes the religious problem.
The tradents altered the original Baalistic import of the name, which means “may Baal contend.”
The name of the Byblian king Rib-Addi illustrates the original significance of Jerubbaal’s name,
since the name Rib-Addi has essentially the same elements as the name of Jerubbaal. Both names
have the same verbal base or root, *ryb, “to contend,” and both have a name of the Canaanite storm-
god. The name Addu appears as Haddu in Ugaritic texts where Haddu stands in parallelism with
Baal. In the second millennium, Baal was an epithet of Haddu. Like the name Jerubbaal, the name
Rib-Addi means “may Addu contend.” Judges 7:32 reinterprets the name of Jerubbaal negatively as
an anti-Baal name: “let Baal plead against him, because he has thrown down his altar.” The negative
interpretation of the name as anti-Baal shows the tradents’ assumption that the theophoric element
refers to the god Baal. Likewise, 2 Samuel 11:21 reflects a negative view of the name of
Jerubbaal. The verse refers to Jerubbaal as Jerubbeshet, substituting for ba ‘al the element *beset, a

play on bóset, “shame.” Jeremiah 3:24 refers to Baal precisely as habbóset, “the Shame” (cf. 11:13;
Hos. 9:10).232 Albright argued that the name of Gideon, based on the root *gd’, “to hew,”
functioned in the text to indicate Jerubbaal’s role as a destroyer of Baal’s altar and the asherah.
Albright therefore suggested that Jerubbaal was the original and perhaps the only name of this
figure (although two historical figures may stand behind the two names). Some confirmation for
Albright's conclusion is provided in 1 Samuel 12:11. The verse offers a partial list of judges who
saved Israel; the recitation gives Gideon's name only as Jerubbaal.243 The editorial gloss in Judges
7:1 also reflects the independent tradition regarding Jerubbaal. The chapter begins its story, “Then
Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon)..." Some proper names with ba 'al as the theophoric element probably
did refer to the god Baal, which would explain the redactor's alterations. Such ambiguity underlies
some proper names with ba ‘al as the theophoric element, which may be either a Baal or a Yahweh
name. For example, like Jerubbaal, the name ba ‘al hanan, the royal overseer of olive and sycamore
trees under David in 1 Chronicles 27:28 (cf. Gen. 36:38-39), is ambiguous. The name means either
“Baal is gracious,” referring to the divinity Baal, or “the lord is gracious,” referring to Yahweh.

The presupposition that ba‘al refers to a god, Baal, not only underlies the change of Jerubbaal to
Jerubbeshet in 2 Samuel 11:21 but also informs the fact that the names of Eshbaal (“man [?] of
Baal/lord”) and Meribbaal (“Baal/ lord is advocate/my master”) in 1 Chronicles 8-9 were altered to
Ishboshet (“man [?] of shame”) and Mephiboshet (from *mippiböset, “from the mouth [?] of
shame”) in 2 Samuel 2-4. The changes in these names reflect the supposition that these names
witnessed to an acceptance of Baal.2* However, Eshbaal and Meribbaal belonged to the clan of
Saul, in which Yahwistic names are also attested, such as Jonathan, the son of Saul. Why would a
Yahwistic family give Baal names, if Baal were a god inimical to Yahweh? The answer is perhaps
implicit in the name of another family member provided in the genealogy of Saul's clan in 1
Chronicles 8:30 and 9:36. In this verse, Baal is the name of Saul's uncle. The name is hypocoristic
(i.e. lacking a divine name), and is usually interpreted as “(Yahweh is) lord.” This name belongs
also to a Reubenite (1 Chron. 5:5). Direct analogies are provided by the name bé‘alyah, “Yah is
lord” (1 Chron. 12:6) and ywb‘l, “Yaw is lord,” attested in a seal inscription.43 These names point
to three possibilities. In Saul’s family, either ba ‘al was a title for Yahweh, or Baal was acceptable in
royal, Yahwistic circles, or both. The same range of possible interpretations underlies the names
of Eshbaal and Meribbaal; both were possibly Yahwistic names, later understood as anti-Yahwistic
in import. The later defensiveness over these names points to the fact that the language of Baal,
though criticized during the monarchy, was used during the Judges period. Furthermore, the
characteristics of Baal and Yahweh probably overlapped. There is indirect evidence for this
conclusion in what is considered Israel’s oldest poetry. Some passages, for example, Judges 5:4-5
and Psalm 29, use imagery characteristic of Baal to describe Yahweh as the divine warrior fighting
to deliver Israel.237 In short, the conflict between Yahweh and Baal was a problem of the monarchic

period and not the period of the Judges.238

The religious issue of the Judges period requires further explanation. If in early Israel El and
Yahweh were identified, and the cults of Baal and Yahweh coexisted, the question why the cults of
Baal and Yahweh were considered irreconcilable beginning in the ninth century needs to be
addressed. To anticipate the discussion of the next chapter, El was not a threat to the cult of Yahweh
in ancient Israel. Phoenician Baal, on the contrary, represented a threat in the ninth century and
onward, especially thanks to the efforts of Ahab and Jezebel to elevate him in the northern
kingdom.2?? This situation was the perspective through which the later tradents of Judges viewed
the religious material in Judges 6-7. In Israel during the Judges period, however, Baal was probably
no more a threat than El. Later tradition did not view the figure of Baal in these terms; indeed, later
sources treat Baal as a threat to Yahwism from the era of the Judges down to the period of the
monarchy. While this historical witness to Baal in Israelite circles is probably correct, the polemical
cast of the witness 1s not. Baal was probably not the threat in the Judges period or the tenth century
that later tradents considered him. It was the traumatic events of the ninth century and afterwards
that shaped the perspective of the tradents.

4. Yahweh and Asherah

Just as there is little evidence for El as a separate Israelite god in the era of the Judges, so Asherah is
poorly attested as a separate Israelite goddess in this period. Arguments for Asherah as a goddess in
this period rest on Judges 6 and elsewhere where she is mentioned with Baal. Yet the story in Judgs
6 focuses much more attention on Baal worship and none on Asherah. Only the asherah, the symbol

su.

appear as the theophoric element in Hebrew proper names.” In recent years it has been claimed

that Asherah was an Israelite goddess and the consort of Yahweh, because her name or at least the
cultic item symbolizing her, the asherah, appears in the eighth-century inscriptions from Kuntillet
Ajrúd and Khirbet el-Qóm. To anticipate that discussion,~“! *’srth in these inscriptions refers to the
symbol originally named after the goddess, although during the eighth century it may not have
symbolized the goddess. This conclusion does not address, however, the issue of whether Asherah
was distinguished as a separate goddess and consort of Yahweh in the period of the Judges. Indeed,
1t may be argued that her symbol was part of the cult of Yahweh in this period, but it did not
symbolize a goddess. Just as El and Baal and their imagery were adapted to the cult of Yahweh, the
asherah was a symbol in Yahwistic cult in this period.

There is one passage that may point to Asherah as an Israelite goddess at some point in early
Israel. Genesis 49 reports Jacob’s blessings to his twelve sons. B. Vawter, D. N. Freedman, and M.
O‘Connor argue that verses 24-26, part of the blessings to Joseph, represent a series of divine
epithets, including two titles of Asherah.24 MT reads:

watteseb bé 'étán qastó
wayyapozzí zéro'é yadayw
mide 'abır ya ‘agob

missam ro 'eh 'eben yisrà 'el
me 'el 'abiíka wéya 'zerekka
we et sadday wibarékekka
birkot Samayim mé ‘al
birkot téhóm robeset tähhat
birkot Ssadayim waraham
birkot 'abika gabérü *a/
birkot hóray 'adta 'áwat
gib ‘öt ‘läm

tihyéna léro's yósep
ülgodgöd nezir 'ehayw

The following translation departs from the MT and instead reflects the proposal of B. Vawter that
four pairs of divine entities are invoked from verse 24d through verse 26c:

His bow stayed taut,

His hands were agile,

By the Bull of Jacob,

By the strength of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,
By El, your Father, who helps you,

By Shadday who blesses you

With the blessings of Heavens, from above,

The blessings of the Deep, crouching below,

The blessings of Breasts-and-Womb,

The blessings of your Father, Hero and Almighty,
The blessings of the Eternal Mountains,

The delight of the Everlasting Hills,

May they be on the head of Joseph,

On the crown of the chosen of his brothers.”

Within verses 24-26 Vawter sees four sets of divine epithets: (a) ’abir ya‘ägöb, “Bull of
Jacob,” and rö ‘eh ’eben yisra ‘el, “Shepherd, Stone of Israel”; (b) ’el 'abíka wéya ‘zérekka, “El, your
father, who saves you,” and Sadday wibarekekka, “Shadday who blesses you”; (c) Samayim mé “al,
“Heaven above,” and tehóm robeset tahat, “Deep crouching below”; and (d) sadayim waraham,
“Breasts-and-Womb,” and 'abíka gibbór wa ‘al, “your Father, Hero and Almighty.” Most of these
epithets, including “Father” and “Shadday,” are attributed elsewhere to Yahweh-El. “Bull of Jacob”
is a title of Yahweh in Psalm 132:2, 5; Isaiah 49:26; 60:16 (cf. Isa. 1:4). The pair of Heaven and
Deep is described in similar fashion in Deuteronomy 33:13. There fal, “dew,” occurs in the same
syntactic position as ‘@l, “above,” in Genesis 49:25c (cf. Gen. 27:28a). Genesis 27:39 combines
differently the various terms associated with Heaven in these verses: úmittal hassayim me ‘al, “from
the dew of Heaven from above.” O’Connor understands verse 26a as a series of epithets and
translates “the blessings of your father, Hero and Almighty.” Instead of MT gaberú ‘al (so RSV),
*gbr is understood as a noun, w- is taken as the conjunction, and '1 is read as a short form of the
divine epithet, ‘/y.245 Verse 25e also contains epithets: “the blessings of Breasts-and-Womb.” This
reading of verse 25e is compelling, given the pairs of epithets in the preceding cola. Indeed, the
titles of verse 25e are paired with the title “your father” of verse 26a, which recalls a standard El
epithet.

The phrase Sadayim waráham in verse 25e echoes Ugaritic titles of the goddesses Asherah and
Anat. The word rhm is associated with the goddess Anat in KTU 1.6 II 27, 1.15 II 6, and 1.23.16.
In KTU 1.23.13 and 28, this title refers to Anat in her pairing with Asherah.2“! In an invocation in
KTU 1.23.23-24, the “beautiful gods” ("ilm n'mm) are characterized as receiving nourishment from
Asherah and Anat:248

'iqr'an "ilm nmm I would invoke the beautiful gods,

l'agzr ym bn] ym [voracious ones of the sea, sons of] the sea,
ynqm b'ap dd who suck from the teat of the breast

‘atrt [wrhmy] of Asherah [and Rahmay]

The description of the “beautiful gods” is paralled in KTU 1.23-61, which refers to a goddess
with the word št, “lady,” perhaps a title of Anat elsewhere in Ugaritic (KTU 1.18 IV 27; 1.19 IV
53).22 In Genesis 49:25e-26a, “Breasts-and-Womb” might be a title attributed to a goddess, paired
with the standard male imagery of El as father. This pair would belong to a larger sequence of
paired epithets including titles of El. The question of which goddess might be involved is not too
difficult to establish. The epithets do not belong to Anat, as her cult is unattested for Iron Age Israel
or Phoenicia. Astarte could be the goddess of Genesis 49:25, since her name is associated with
natural fertility, which is the setting for the epithets in this passage. More specifically, the expression
“astérót só'n refers to the young of animals (Deut. 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51)299 and derives from the
goddess's name in construct with son, a collective term for small animals such as sheep and
goats.2?. Moreover, there are later references to Astarte in biblical literature (Judg. 2:13; 10:6). The
strongest evidence, however, supports Asherah as the goddess evoked by the female epithets in
Genesis 49:25. The Ugaritic background of the epithets favors Asherah. Furthermore, the pairing of
Sadayim waraham with El would further point to Asherah, since Asherah is the goddess paired with
him in the Ugaritic texts. Other interpretations are posssible for sadayim waraham. These terms
meaning “breasts and womb” could be interpreted in purely natural terms, as signs of natural
fertility. This interpretation represents the traditional view of the terms and is reflected in most
modern translations (e.g., RSV, NAB, New Jewish Publication Society). The word sdym could be
translated differently and understood to refer to “mountains” cognate with Akkadian Sadi, and
raham could be understood in another way, perhaps as “winds,” the plural of Hebrew riiah. The first
alternative would fit well with the setting of natural fertility in these verses. The second alternative
would comport with the cosmic terms, “Heaven” and “Deeps” in the preceding bicolon and “Eternal
Mountains” and “Everlasting Hills” in the following line. The pairing with El, however, favors the
interpretation of Sadayim wäaräham as the epithets of Asherah. If this interpretation of Genesis
49:24-26 is correct, then El and Asherah were Israelite deities distinguished from Yahweh, who is
invoked separately in verse 18.222 This chapter might then represent a tradition or early stage in
Israel's religious history in which El and Yahweh were not identified and Asherah stood as an
identifiable goddess.

In subsequent tradition, the titles of El in this passage were treated differently from sadayim
waraham. In the period of the monarchy, the male titles of El as well as Baal were regarded as
epithets of Yahweh, as their attestations in Deuteronomy 33:26-27 and Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):14-16
show. The female imagery of Genesis 49:25e suffered a different fate in the history of the tradition.
It was not directly assimilated to Yahweh in the way that male epithets were. Rather, these epithets
were not applied to Yahweh and, as chapter 3 shows, female language for the divine appears
infrequently and indirectly in biblical texts. The history of interpretation of Genesis 49:25e also
illustrates the way that this female language was treated. Modern translations and commentaries
generally treat the language of “Breasts-and-Womb” in purely natural terms, despite the cluster of
divine epithets surrounding this phrase. S. Olyan has demonstrated that Asherah was a goddess
paired with El, and this pairing was bequeathed to Israelite religion by virtue of the Yahweh-El
identification.2 This reconstruction is consistent with the evidence of Genesis 49:25. However, the
subsequent history of the female language seems to differ. In some quarters devotion to the goddess
may have persisted, but neither biblical information nor inscriptional material unambiguously
confirms this historical reconstruction. Rather, the explicit cult of the goddess may not have
endured. The maternal language, originally deriving from the goddess and made cultically present
through the symbol of the asherah, did not refer to the goddess later in the cult of Yahweh. The titles
and imagery belonging to El and Baal in Genesis 49:24-26 raise a further question about the nature
of conflation of deities in early Israel. While later tradition presumed that these verses describe
Yahweh, the god treated in these verses appears to be a different god, since Yahweh is invoked in a
separate section in verse 18.

One further piece of evidence, a cultic stand from the site of Taanach, may point to Israelite
devotion to Asherah in the early monarchy. Dated to the tenth century by its excavators, this square
hollow stand has four levels or registers depicting a number of divine symbols.2?4 The bottom level
depicts a naked female figure with each of her hands resting on the heads of lions (or lionesses)
flanking her. This figure could be Anat, Asherah, or Astarte, but the attestation of Astarte's cult in
this period and her iconography with the lion in Egypt might favor the identification of the female
figure here with her. The second lowest register has an opening in the middle flanked by two
sphinxes with a lion's body, bird's wings, and a female head. The next register has a sacred tree,
composed of a heavy central trunk sprouting symmetrically three pairs of curling branches. Two
Ibexes stand on their hind legs, and both face the tree in the center. On the outside of the two ibexes
are two lions. The symbol of the tree is an asherah, the tree named after the goddess Asherah. The
top register depicts a young four-legged animal, either a bovine, such as an ox or a young bull
without horns (BH 'egel). This animal may have represented either Baal or Yahweh in tenth-century
Taanach. Finally, above the animal appears a solar disk, the symbol of the sun deity that appears
with major gods in the iconography of this period. In short, assuming the correct dating of the stand
to the tenth century, the stand attests to polytheism in this area. The Taanach stand suggests that at
the beginning of Iron II (ca. 1000-587), the city maintained the worship of a god, either Yahweh or
Baal, a goddess, probably Astarte, and the devotion to the asherah, possibly at this juncture
symbolizing the goddess Asherah. The significance of the stand for understanding Israelite religion
in the early years of the monarchy hinges in part on the accuracy of the dating of the stand by its
excavators. If the stand is dated correctly, then it might constitute evidence for Israelite religion.
Judges 1:27 would suggest that the city remained at least partially Canaanite down to the monarchy.
Afterwards following the rise of the Davidic dynasty, the city became Israelite. Solomon's
organization of the nation lists Taanach and Megiddo 1n the fifth district (1 Kings 4:12). Though
politically identified as Israelite, the city may have continued its Canaanite cultic traditions, which
flourished in the valleys and the coast in the Late Bronze Age. Dated to the early monarchy, the
stand would appear to provide evidence for Israelite polytheism (including Asherah), continuous
with earlier Canaanite traditions.

That Anat was not a goddess in Iron Age Israel seems clear. Apart from proper names, evidence
for her cult is virtually nonexistent. As section 4 of chapter 2 discusses, her imagery also became
part of the repertoire of martial descriptions for Yahweh. Solar worship in this early period is
likewise difficult to establish. Solar imagery for Yahweh developed during the period of the
monarchy, perhaps through the influence of monarchic religious ideology.2? The geographical
distribution of these deities can be pinpointed minimally. The cult of Yahweh and the symbol, the
asherah, appear from later data to be general features of both northern and southern religion. The
northern evidence for El seems clear from his cult in Shechem. Jerusalem probably represents
another cultic site where the royal cult of Yahweh assumed the indigenous traditions of El. The
monarchic solar imagery for Yahweh seems to be strictly a southern development, a special feature

of the royal Judean cult. The information about Baal stems from largely northern sources, but he
was apparently popular in both kingdoms. Evidence for Astarte is extremely rare in the period of the
Judges. Moreover, the biblical evidence may stem from a later, southern polemic against this
goddess.

5. Convergence of Divine Imagery

Some of the older Israelite poems juxtapose imagery associated with El and Baal in the Ugaritic
texts and apply this juxtaposition of attributes to Yahweh. It was noted that Genesis 49:25-26, for

example, exhibits language deriving from El and Asherah. According to F. M. Cross,2

Deuteronomy 33:26-27227 mixes El and Baal epithets.8 Verse 26 describes Yahweh in storm
language traditional to Baal%2 while verse 27 applies to Yahweh the phrase, 'élohé qedem, “the

ancient god,” a description reflecting El’s great age:

There is none like God, O Jeshurun,

who rides (rokéb) through the heavens (Samayim) to your help,
and in his majesty through the skies.

The eternal God (’elöhe gedem) is your dwelling place ...

Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):14-16 (E 13-15) likewise juxtaposes El and Baal imagery or titles for
Yahweh:2

Yahweh also thundered in the heavens,

and the Most High (“elyón) uttered his voice,

hailstones and coals of fire.

And he sent out his arrows,

and scattered them;

he flashed forth lightnings,

and routed them.

Then the channels of the sea ("apigé mayim) were seen ...

This passage bears two explicit hallmarks of El language within a passage primarily describing a
storm theophany of the type predicated of Baal in Ugaritic literature. The title 'elyón is an old
epithet of El.24l In Genesis 14:19 it occurs as a title of the god of the patriarchs, and it appears in the
older poetic compositions for the god of Israel (see also Num. 24:4; cf. Deut. 32:8). It is a common
divine title in the Psalter (Pss. 93; 21:8; 46:5; 50:14; 57:3; 73:11; 77:11; 78:17, 35, 56; 83:19; 91:1,
9; 92:2; 107:11). In Psalm 82:6 it appears in the phrase béné ‘elyon. There it refers to other deities
and reflects El’s role as father of the gods. The “channels of the sea” (apigé mayim) perhaps echo
the description of the waters of El’s abode, called mbk nhrm//‘apq thmtm, “springs of the two
rivers//the channels of the double-deeps" (KTU 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 14; 1.4IV 21-22; 1.5 VI 1*; 1.6 1
34; 1.17 VI 48; cf. 1. 100.2-3).2 Besides the features associated with El in Canaanite tradition,
Psalm 18:14-16 describes Yahweh as a divine warrior, manifesting his divine weaponry in the storm
like Baal in the Ugaritic texts.

In these passages, Deuteronomy 33:26-27, Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):14-16, as well as Genesis 49:25-
26, imagery regularly applied to El and Baal in Northwest Semitic literature was attributed to
Yahweh at a relatively early point in Israel’s religious history. Moreover, in applying this imagery to
Yahweh, these passages combine or conflate the imagery of more than one Canaanite deity. Other
poetic passages treated in subsequent chapters, such as Psalm 68 and Deuteronomy 32, offer further
examples of conflation or convergence of divine language associated with a variety of deities in
Canaanite literature. Such convergence in Israel’s earliest history occurs in other forms. The modes
and content of revelation appropriate to El and Baal appear in conflated form in the earliest levels of
biblical tradition.2°2 Likewise, Psalm 27 describes the divine dwelling in terms used of El’s and
Baal’s homes in Canaanite tradition. Psalm 27:6 calls Yahweh's home a tent (*'ohel) like El's
dwelling in the Elkunirsa myth. Psalm 27:4 calls Yahweh’s home a “house” (bét), language more
characteristic of Baal’s abode (KTU 1.4 VII 42) than El’s dwelling (cf. KTU 1.114). As J. C.
Greenfield has noted,“ other terms in Psalm 27 evoking language of Baal’s home include nó 'am in
verse 4 and yispénéni (*spn) in verse 5.

6. Convergence in Israelite Religion

Israel’s major deities in the period of the Judges were not numerous. Genesis 49:25-26 possibly
point to an early stage when Israel knew three deities, El, Asherah, and Yahweh. In addition, Baal
constituted a fourth deity in Israel’s early religious history. This situation changed by the period of
the early monarchy. Yahweh and El were identified, and at some point, devotion to the goddess
Asherah did not continue as an identifiably separate cult. After this point, polytheism in the Judges
period other than devotion to Baal is difficult to document. In general, the oldest stages of Israel’s
religious literature exhibit some limited signs of Yahweh having assimilated the imagery of the
primary deities. These conclusions cannot be stated without qualification, inasmuch as the data is
incomplete and possibly not representative. Indeed, because of the incomplete picture of this period,
perhaps it should be concluded that Israel was more polytheistic in the period of the Judges.

Other religious developments within the cult of Yahweh may have played a role in accenting
Yahwistic monolatry during various periods. According to P. D. Miller,*® these features include
Israel’s imageless or aniconic tradition, the influence of the Ten Commandments in Israel’s religious
tradition, and polemics against ’é/ohim ‘ahérim, “other gods” (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), and ’elöhrm
hadasim, “new gods” (Judg. 5:8; cf. Ps. 44:21), as well as denials of other gods (Deut. 32:39; 1
Sam. 2:2). Although numerous polemics against images (e.g., Isa. 2:8; 10:10; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19;
42:19; Jer. 1:16; 8:19; Micah 1:7; Nahum 1:14) would bring into question the claim that the
aniconic requirement exercised influence on other apects of Israelite religion, presumably these
features helped to mold ideas of monolatry early in Israel’s history. Moreover, the prophetic
criticisms against images belong largely to the eighth century, leaving open the question of the later
influence of the aniconic requirement. As chapter 6 illustrates, centralization of cult and the rise of
writing as an authoritative medium also contributed to the development of Israelite monolatry in the
period of the monarchy. These features of Israelite religion generally distinguish it from Israel’s
neighbors, as far as the evidence indicates.

The convergence of titles and imagery of deities to the personage of Yahweh appears to have
been part of a wider religious development of conflation of religious motifs in Israelite tradition.
Two examples of this general religious development illustrate it. The biblical and extrabiblical
traditions of Shadday perhaps witness to a regional influence on the cult of Yahweh. The epithet
appears twice in the stories in Numbers 22-24 pertaining to the prophet seer Balaam (Num. 24:4,
16).2°7 A non-Israelite initially hired to curse the Israelites moving through Moab, Balaam in the
end proclaims a blessing upon them. The Deir ‘Alia texts likewise suggest that *sd(v) was a divine
epithet at home in Transjordan. These texts describe an oracle of Balaam witnessing to divinities
called sdyn, shaddays. The Sdyn deities in these texts diverge from material known about El or
Yahweh from either Ugaritic or generally from the Bible. It would appear from both the biblical
attestation to the title El Shadday in Numbers 24 and the reference to the $dyn in the Deir “Alia texts
that this divine epithet was traditional to the region of Transjordan. The epithet was a title for El
during the period of the monarchy, appearing, for example, in Genesis 49:25. The priestly tradition
reflects the further assimilation of this title into the repertoire of epithets for Yahweh (Gen. 17:1;
28:3; 35:11; 43:14; cf. Ezek. 10:5), and attaches the name to Bethel (Gen. 48:3).

In Israelite religious tradition, the waters of El's abode apparently underwent two major
alterations. First of all, they appear in two different ways in biblical tradition.2® As in the examples
of Genesis 49:25d and Deuteronomy 33:13b noted above, these waters are life-giving. In Isaiah
33:20-22; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Joel 4:18; Zechariah 14:8 (cf. Gen. 2:10; 2 Esdras 5:25-26; 1 Enoch 26),
they issue from beneath the Temple. As noted above in the case of Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):16, the
waters also appear in biblical tradition as underworld waters (see also Job 28:11;2°2 38:16-17; 2
Esdras 4:7-8). Second, the underworld setting of the waters was perhaps originally alien to the
mythologem. 279 The examples of El Shadday and the waters of El’s home illustrate that despite the
explicit identification between Yahweh and El made in some biblical passages, the relationship
between the traditions of El and Yahweh was highly complex. Indeed, Canaanite religious traditions
exhibit substantial modifications in their Israelite forms. By and large, it is difficult, 1f not

impossible, to identify the specific socio-political forces behind the process of convergence. One of
the major instances cited above is Psalm 18 (= 2 Samuel 22), which is clearly a royal thanksgiving.
From this example, it is evident that the monarchy either generated or inherited (and then used) the
convergence of divine imagery in order to elevate the national god. Indeed, the vast bulk of biblical
texts date to the monarchic period or later, and the ascendant position of Yahweh as the national god
under the monarchy would make convergence of divine imagery a powerful ideology political tool.
Yet, given the lack of information, the premonarchic period cannot be ruled out entirely as the older
context for convergence, at least to some degree.

7. Israel and Its Neighbors

The immediate neighbors of Israel that emerged by the early first millennium exhibit ten or fewer
deities, according to the meager data. At first glance, Ammon does not appear to reflect a
relatively small group of deities. Based on the theophoric elements in proper names, K. Jackson lists
ten Ammonite deities: b, ’dn, 'ሂ ’nrt, bl, hm, mlk, nny, ’m and sms.2 Some of these elements, such
as 'b and dn, are presumably titles, however. Biblical sources presuppose that m/k or Milkom was
the national Ammonite god (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; Zeph.
1:5). Ammonite proper names show a preponderance of the theophoric element *‘/,22 which might
suggest a close relationship between El and Milkom in Ammonite religion. Perhaps the two were
identified, like El and Yahweh in Israelite religion.24 The patron god of the Moabite dynasty was
Chemosh (KAI 181:3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 32, 33; 1 Kings 11:7; Jer. 48:13).2 The name

Ashtar-Chemosh appears once (KAI 181:17). Otherwise, the deities of Moab are little known.276

The case for Edom perhaps parallels the religious situation of early Israel more closely. The
national god of Edom was Qaws, attested in inscriptional material from Qitmit and the writings of
Josephus (Antiquities 15.253).22 This divine name appears as the theophoric element in several
Edomite, Nabatean, and Arabic names, including those of Edomite kings.228 El (Gen. 36:39), Baal
(Gen. 36:38), and Hadad (1 Kings 11:14-21; Gen. 36:35- 36) also appear as theophoric elements in
Edomite proper names. Some of these names were possibly old Canaanite deities that continued into
first millennium Edomite religion, although like the name of Anat in Israelite names, these
theophoric elements may not point to cultic devotion to these deities. A head of a goddess,
presumed to be Edomite, was excavated at Qitmit.2” As an aside, it should be noted that biblical
information about the Edomites in these passages may suggest a high level of cultural interaction in
early Israel. This interaction would further explain the origins and incorporation of the cult of
Yahweh into the highlands of Israel in the Iron I period from Edom/ Midian/Teiman/Paran, a

tradition that perdured despite later hostilities between Israelites and Edomites.282

The Phoenician city-states of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre manifest fewer than ten deities. Byblos’
deities were Baal Shamem (KAI 4:3), b‘l ’dr (KAI 9 B 5), b‘l (KAI 12:4), and b lt gbl, “the lady of
Byblos” (KAI 5:1; 6:2; 7:3).28! The dynastic god of Byblos was Baal Shamem, and the other deities
perhaps were older Canaanite divinities.282 Sidonian deities included Eshmun (KAI 14-16) and
Astarte (KAI 13:1; 1 Kings 11:5).283 Sidonian inscriptions also mention Resheph (KAI 15) and the
Rephaim (13:7; 14:8). The treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal II of Tyre lists in order the deities of Tyre
as Bethel, Anat-Bethel, Baal Shamem, Baal-Malaga, Baal-Saphon, Melqart, Eshmun, and
Astarte.24 The initial position of Bethel would point to his status as the primary god of the Tyrian
pantheon. That Bethel is a secondary hypostasis of El has been argued by M. Barré.285 The
depiction of Tyrian El in Ezekiel 28 would comport with this conclusion. Baal Shamem is also
mentioned in a Tyrian inscription (KAI 18). Astarte 1s attested in KAI 17:1 from nearby Umm
el-‘Amed. Inscriptions from nearby Sarepta include the deities $drp* and tnt'strt, perhaps a
combination of the names of two goddesses, Tannit and Astarte.2% The collectivity of deities, the
divine council, is attested in Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos (KAI 4:4-5, 7), Sidon (KAI 14:9,
22), and Karatepe (KAI 26 A III 19).

On the basis of the little available evidence, it would appear that the first-millennium neighbors
of Israel did not maintain cultic devotion on the same scale as the second-millennium religion in the
Levant. While more than two hundred deities are attested at Ugarit, the texts for the first-millennium
states in the region attest to ten or fewer deities. It might be presumed that in Israel and among its
neighbors there were other deities to which the extant texts do not witness. Indeed, it might be
argued that 1f the same number and variety of texts were available for early Israel or its neighbors as
from Ugarit, the number of deities in them would approximate the number of deities in the Ugaritic
texts. This argument by extrapolation to the Ugaritic texts may represent no better or no worse an
argument from silence than one that would conclude a relative paucity of deities from the little
evidence of Israelite and other first-millennium Northwest Semitic texts. In the final analysis,

deriving historical claims on the basis of the actually attested texts (especially for the early period)
is highly problematic. While it can be claimed only that the deities attested for Israel are relatively
few in number, it remains possible that first-millennium Levantine religion differed in this respect
from its second-millennium antecedents, and Israel was part of this development.

In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not
contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbors in either number or configuration of
deities. Rather, the number of deities in Israel was relatively typical for the region. Furthermore, as
they did in the religions of surrounding states, some old Canaanite deities continued within an
Israelite pantheon dominated by a national god. Like some of the Phoenician city-states and perhaps
Edom, earliest Israel knew El, Baal, a new dynastic or national god, the divine council, a partial
divinization of deceased ancestors (Rephaim), and perhaps the cult of a goddess. Similarly, during
the period of the Judges, Yahweh held hegemony over a complex religion that preserved some old
Canaanite components through an identification with El, a continuation of the concepts of the divine
council and partially divinized ancestors, a coexistence with Baal, and perhaps an early toleration
for Asherah and subsequent assimilation of her cult and symbol, the asherah. This state of affairs
was not to hold for the period of the monarchy.

CHAPTER 2

Yahweh and Baal

1. Baal Worship in Israel

According to the biblical record, the worship of Baal threatened Israel from the period of the Judges
down to the monarchy.2?? It is assumed in 1 Kings 11:4 that this was the case for Solomon's reign.
Names with ba ‘al as the theophoric element, such as Jerubbaal, Eshbaal, and Meribbaal, have been
taken to indicate that Israelite society, including some royal circles, viewed the worship of Baal as a
legitimate practice. Indeed, some scholars interpret these names as evidence both that ba‘al was a
title for Yahweh and that the cult of Baal coexisted with the cult of Yahweh.25 Inscriptions from
Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom, provide an important witness for the ninth or
eighth century. These inscriptions, called the Samaria ostraca, contain at least five names with the
theophoric element of ha al as opposed to nine names with the Yahweh component.28? By way of
contrast, no personal names with ba ‘al as the theophoric element are extant from Judah. These data
have prompted some scholarly speculation about the widespread acceptance of Baal from the period

of the Judges down through the fall of the northern kingdom in 722, especially in the north.229

According to 1 Kings 17-19, the ninth century marked a critical time for the cult of Baal in Israel.
The biblical and extrabiblical sources provide a wide array of information pertaining to the cult of
Baal in Israel and Phoenicia during this period. The biblical record dramatically presents the spread
of the cult of Phoenician Baal in Samaria. Jezebel, daughter of Ittobaal, king of Tyre, and wife of
Ahab, king of the northern kingdom, strongly sponsored the worship of Baal (1 Kings 16:31). First,
Ahab built a temple to Baal, which is said to have been in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32). From 2 Kings
13:6, 1t 1s clear that Baal had his own temple in the environs of Samaria, apart from the cult of the
national god, Yahweh (cf. 1 Kings 16:32; 2 Kings 10:21-27).22! Ahab also erected an asherah,
whose location and relationship to Baal are not specified. Elijah, the enemy of Ahab, and the
measures that Ahab and Jezebel took to support the worship of Baal in the capital are presented in 1
Kings 17-19. Jezebel persecuted the prophets of Yahweh (1 Kings 18:3), but provided income to the
prophets of Baal and Asherah (1 Kings 18:19).22 Later, in a speech to Yahweh, Elijah says that he
is the only prophet of Yahweh to have escaped Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 19:10).

To judge from the biblical sources, the baal of Jezebel was a god with power over the rain, like
Ugaritic Baal. In 1 Kings 17-19 is stressed Yahweh’s power over nature, which corresponds to
various phenomena associated with Baal in the Ugaritic texts.2 These powers include dominion
over the storm (1 Kings 17:1-17; 18:41-46).2 The prophets of “the baal” compete with Elijah on
Mount Carmel to see whose god truly has power over nature (1 Kings 18). One of the functions of 1
Kings 17-19 is to prove that Yahweh has power over all of these phenomena, but unlike the baal of
Jezebel, Yahweh transcends these manifestations of divine power (1 Kings 19, esp. v. 11).2%
Jezebel's own name, ’izebel, “where is the Prince?” (e.g., 1 Kings 16:31; 18:4f.; 19:1; 21:5f.; 2
Kings 9:7), recalls the specific wording of human concern expressed over Baal’s death, attested in
the Ugaritic Baal cycle (KTU 1.6 IV 4-5).2%

That the biblical baal was a Phoenician god with power over the storm may be deduced from
extrabiblical texts. The baal is identified either with Melqart?2 or Baal Shamem.2% Nothing in the
meager Phoenician sources bearing on this god directly contradicts an identification with Melqart.
Perhaps he was the main city god of Tyre, since in KAI 47:1 he is called the “lord of Tyre” (5 7
sr). Furthermore, it might be argued that the baal of Jezebel should be Melqart, since his name
means “king of the city,” presumably referring to Tyre (although this point perhaps presupposes that
his name and cult originated at Tyre, a conclusion beyond the scope of the currently available
information). A primary feature of his cult seems to be his “awakening” from death.2% Melgart is
the Herakles whom Josephus calls the “dead hero” (herói enagizousi) who receives offerings.
Josephus (Antiquities 8.146) also mentions that Hiram “brought about the resurrection of Herakles”
(tou hérakleous egersin epoiésato). The title “raiser of Herakles" (egerse[iten tou] herakleou[s])
occurs in a Roman period inscription from Philadelphia. This cult likely underlies the title mqm "Im,
“the raiser of the god(s),” in a second-century Phoenician inscription from Rhodes (KAI 44:2).
Arguments identifying the Baal of 1 Kings 17-19 with Melqart rely largely on viewing the taunt of 1
Kings 18:27 as an allusion to this rite of “awakening.” Yet the ancient Near Eastern notion of the

“sleeping god” in this verse is wider than the specific cult of Melqart. Sleep is attributed to deities in
Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan, including Yahweh (Pss. 44:24[E 23]; 78:65).39. There is no
evidence indicating that Melqart was a storm-god, although appeal might be made to his lineage
presented in Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.27): “Demarous had a son Melkarthos, who is also known as
Herakles.”222 From this connection between Melgart and Demarous, a title of Baal Haddu in the

Ugaritic texts,20 it might be inferred that the nature of Melqart was meteorological.

The evidence for Baal Shamem is manifestly meteorological. Attested in Phoenician inscriptions
at Byblos (KAI 4:3), Umm el-‘Amed (KAI 18:1, 7), Karatepe (KAI 26 A III 18), Kition (RES
1519b), Carthage (KAI 78:2), and Sardinia (KAI 64:1), Baal Shamem had power over the storm,
which is mentioned in a curse in the treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal II of Tyre. The treaty
invokes three “baals” — Baal Shamem, Baal-Malaga, and Baal-Saphon — to bring an “evil wind”
upon Baal II if he violates the treaty: “May Baal Shamem, Baal Malaga and Baal Saphon raise an
evil wind against your ships, to undo their moorings, tear out their mooring pole, may a strong wave
sink them in the sea, a violent tide [...] against you.”24 This curse invokes all three gods to wield
their power of the storm (cf. Jonah 1:4). According to Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.7), beelsamen was a
storm-god, associated with the sun in the heavens and equated with Zeus,¿% although Baal
Shamem’s solar characteristic apparently was a later product.22° That Baal Shamem and not Melgart
was the patron god of Ahab and Jezebel may be inferred from the proper names attested for the
Tyrian royal family. The onomasticon of the Tyrian royal house bears no names with Melqart. There

is only one exception to "57 as the theophoric element in royal proper names from Tyre.222

That Baal Shamem and not Melqart was a threat in Israel in the pre-exilic period might be
inferred from the fact that the god in question is called “the baal” (1 Kings 18:19, 22, 25, 26, 40).
The invocation of Baal Shamem in the Aramaic version of Psalm 20 written in Demotic may also
provide evidence of this god in Israelite religion. This version of Psalm 20 belongs to a papyrus
dating to the second century known as Papyrus Amherst Egyptian no. 63 (column XI, lines 11-19).
The text, which may have come from Edfu, shows some Egyptian influence, specifically the
mention of the god Horus. The text may secondarily reflect genuine Israelite features. M. Weinfeld
argues that the psalm was originally Canaanite or northern Israelite.2°2 For Weinfeld, the references
to Baal Shamem, El-Bethel, and Mount Saphon reflect an original Canaanite or northern Israelite
setting, perhaps Bethel. The biblical version of Psalm 20 would reflect a southern version, which
secondarily imported the psalm into the cult of Yahweh. In this case, the Aramaic version may have
derived from a northern Israelite predecessor. If so, the reference to Baal Shamem might reflect the
impact of this god in Israelite religion.

Some scholars identify the baal of Jezebel with the baal of Carmel, perhaps as his local
manifestation at Carmel.2!2 Like Baal Shamem, the baal of Carmel appears to be a storm-god. A
second-century inscription from Carmel on a statue identifies the god of Carmel as Zeus
Heliopolis.24 At Baalbek, Zeus Heliopolis had both solar and storm characteristics. According to
Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.23.19), this Zeus Heliopolis was a solarized form of the Assyrian storm-
god, Adad.2 As with Baal Shamem, the solar characteristic of Adad is a secondary development.
Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.23.10) identifies the cult of Zeus Heliopolis with a solarized worship of
Jupiter. The text provides further description:

The Assyrians, too, in a city called Heliopolis, worship the sun with an elaborate ritual under
the name of Heliopolis, calling him “Zeus of Heliopolis.” The statue of the god was brought
from the Egyptian town also called Heliopolis, when Senemur (who was perhaps the same as
Senepos) was king of Egypt... the identification of this god with Jupiter and the sun is clear

from the form of the ceremonial and from the appearance of the statue.313

In sum, the biblical evidence suggests that the Phoenician baal of Ahab and Jezebel was a storm-
god. The extrabiblical evidence indicates that the baal of Carmel and Baal Shamem were also
storm-gods, whereas Melqart does not appear to have been a storm-god. From the available data,
following O. Eissfeldt, Baal Shamem was the baal of Jezebel.

Some reason for the adoption of the Phoenician baal by the northern monarchy may be tentatively
suggested. The coexistence of cult to Yahweh and Baal prior to and up to the ninth century may
have suggested to Ahab and his successors that elevating Baal in Israel would not represent a radical
innovation. Ahab's religious policies presumably would have appealed to those “Canaanites” living
in Israelite cities during the monarchy, if these “Canaanites” represent a historical witness to those

descendents of the old Canaanite cities that the Israelites are said not to have held originally (Josh.
16:10; 17:12-13; Judg. 1:27-35);314 however, this witness is difficult to assess for historical value.
The religious program of Ahab and Jezebel represented a theopolitical vision in continuity with the
traditional compatibility of Yahweh and Baal. Up to this time both Yahweh and Baal had cults in the
northern kingdom. Whereas Yahweh was the main god of the northern kingdom and divine patron
of the royal dynasty in the north, Baal also enjoyed cultic devotion. Ahab and Jezebel perhaps
created a different theopolitical vision. While the cult of Yahweh continued in the northern
kingdom, Baal perhaps was elevated as the patron god of the northern monarchy, thus creating some
sort of theopolitical unity between the kingdom of the north and the city of Tyre.

It would appear from various statements in the biblical text that although Ahab and Jezebel
attempted to promote Baal, there may have been initially no corresponding royal attempt to rid the
north of the cult of Yahweh, although the complaints of Elijah (1 Kings 18:22) give that impression.
Ahab was not quite the apostate from Yahwism that the biblical polemics of 1 Kings 16:30-33 and
21:25-26 present. Ahab's sons, Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:40) and Joram (2 Kings 1:17; 8:25), bear
Yahwistic names. After his conflict with Elijah, Ahab consults Yahwistic prophets (1 Kings 20:13-
15, 22, 28). In the presence of Elijah, whom he calls *my enemy" (1 Kings 21:20), Ahab repents (1
Kings 21:27-29), which requires a postponement of divine punishment. The historical narratives
depicting Ahab and Jezebel as opponents to the cult of Yahweh contain a considerable degree of
negative typecasting. The theopolitical vision of Ahab and Jezebel perhaps did not initially include
the eradication of the cult of Yahweh, but it would appear that some cost was involved, at least
within the royal cult. This situation likely provoked the severe reaction against the Phoenician baal
represented in the Elijah cycle (1 Kings 17-19). The perspective of Elijah represents a third
theopolitical vision reacting against the royal program. This reaction perhaps issued subsequently in
the persecution of Yahwistic prophets on the part of Ahab and Jezebel. Both the evidence for royal
support for Yahweh and Baal and the reports of royal persecution of Yahwistic prophets are

historically plausible. 15

According to historical sources, support for Baal was severely ruptured at this juncture in Israelite
history. Jehu managed the slaughter of Baal’s royal and prophetic supporters and the destruction of
the Baal temple in Samaria (2 Kings 10), and Jehoiada the priest oversaw the death of Athaliah and
the destruction of another temple of Baal (2 Kings 11). Jehu’s reform was not as systematic as the
texts might suggest, however. Jehu did not fully eradicate Baal worship.2!© Confirmation for this
viewpoint comes from inscriptional and biblical sources. The Kuntillet ‘Ajrad inscriptions contain
the names of Baal and Yahweh in the same group of texts. Dismissing such attestations to the god
Baal because the script may be “Phoenician” appears injudicious.24 Indeed, the texts bear “vowel
letters” (or matres lectionis), which constitute a writing convention found in Hebrew, but not in

Phoenician. Unlike Hebrew, Phoenician does not use letters to mark vowels.212

References in Hosea to “the baal” (2:10 [E 8]; 2:18 [E 16]; 13:1; cf. 7:16) and “the baals” (2:15
[E 13]; 2:19 [E 17]; 11:2) add further evidence of Baal worship in the northern kingdom. Hosea
2:16 (E 18) begins a section that recalls imagery especially reminiscent of Baal. According to some
scholars,2% Hosea 2:18 (E 16) plays on ba ʻal as a title of Yahweh and indicates that some northern
Israelites did not distinguish between Yahweh and Baal. The verse declares, “And in that day, says
Yahweh, you will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My ba‘al.’”21 The
substitution of Yahweh for Baal continues dramatically in Hosea 2:23-24 (E 21-23). These verses
echo Baal's message to Anat in KTU 1.3 III 13-31 (cf. 1.3 IV 7-20). In this speech, Baal announces
to Anat that the word that he understands will be revealed to humanity who does not yet know it. In
the context of the narrative, this word is the message of the cosmic fertility that will occur when
Baal’s palace is built on his home on Mount Sapan. Upon the completion of his palace, Baal creates
his meteorological manifestation of the storm from the palace, which issues in cosmic blessing
(KTU 1.4 V-VII). Part of the message to Anat describes the cosmic communication between the
Heavens and the Deeps, an image for cosmic fertility222 (cf. Gen. 49:25; Deut. 33:13):

dm rgm ‘it ly w 'argmk
hwt w 'atnyk

rem ‘s w Ihst ‘abn
t'ant $mm 'm "ars
thmt ‘mn kbkbm
'abn brq dl td" ¿mm
rem ltd' nim

wltbn hmlt "ars
‘atm wank "ibgyh
btk gry “il spn

bqds bér nhlty
bn'm bgb' tl'iyt

For I have a word I will tell you,

A message I will recount to you,

A word of tree and whisper of stone,

Converse of Heaven with Earth,

Of Deeps to the Stars.

I understand the lightning Heaven does not know,
The word humans do not know,

And Earth's masses do not understand.

Come and I will reveal it,

In the midst of my mountain, Divine Sapan,

In the holy place, on the mount of my possession,
In the pleasant place, on the hill of my victory.

With victory in hand, Baal's message presages a glorious natural paradise on earth through the
agency of his fructifying rains.

Hosea 2:23-24 (E 21-22) bears a similar message, which also utilizes the language of cosmic

speech or *answering":323

And it will be on that day,
I will answer — oracle of Yahweh —

wehäyäh bayyóm hahü’
'e'éneh né£'um yhwh
'e'éneh "et-hassámáyim I will answer the heavens,
And they shall answer the earth;
And the earth shall answer
With the grain, the wine

and the oil,

wéhem ya'áná 'et-há'áres

wehä’äres ta‘dneh

'et-haddágán wé'et-hattirós
we’et-hayyishär

wéhém ya'dnü 'et-yizr&'e(")l And they shall answer Jezreel.

Like Baal's victory over the forces of destruction, one day Yahweh's "answering" will produce
cosmic bounty for Israel (cf. Hos. 14:9). Like Baal's word to Anat, the message of Yahweh will
traverse the heavens and the earth, which will explode with universal fertility. For Hosea 2, this
cosmic speech communicates the natural fertility, a blessing that issues from the covenant between
Yahweh and Israel (v. 20). The words of Hosea 2:23-24 bear the freight of Canaanite literary
tradition, evoking, like Hosea 2:18, the imagery of the storm-god Baal and his divine blessings on
the cosmos.

Despite royal attempts at reform, Baal worship continued. Although Jehoram, the son of Ahab,
undertook a program of reform (2 Kings 3:2) and Athaliah and Mattan, the priest of Baal, were
murdered (2 Kings 11:18), royal devotion to Baal persisted. Ahaz fostered Baal worship (2 Chron.
28:2). According to Jeremiah 23:13, Baal worship led to the fall of Samaria and the northern
kingdom. The verse declares, “And among the prophets of Samaria I saw an unsavory thing; they
prophesied by Baal and led astray my people, Israel.” Jeremiah 23:27 further condemns Israelite
prophecy by Baal. Hezekiah sought to eliminate worship of Baal, but his son, Manasseh, rendered
royal support to his cult (2 Kings 21:3; 2 Chron. 33:3). Finally, Josiah purged the Jerusalem temple
of cultic paraphernalia designed for Baal (2 Kings 23:4; cf. Zeph. 1:4). Prophetic polemic from the
end of the southern kingdom also claims that the monarchy permitted religious devotion to Baal
down to its final days (Jer. 2:8; 7:9; 9:13; 12:16). From the cumulative evidence it appears that on
the whole Baal was an accepted Israelite god, that criticism of his cult began in the ninth or eighth
century, and that despite prophetic and Deuteronomistic criticism, this god remained popular
through the end of the southern kingdom. There is no evidence that prior to the ninth century Baal
was considered a major threat to the cult of Yahweh.

The word ba‘al exhibits a complex development in biblical and extrabiblical sources. The
Hebrew terms “the baal” (habba‘al) and “the baals” (habbé‘alim) represent the god Baal, his
manifestation at a variety of cult sites, and various divine “lords” or gods. Baal Hermon, Baal
Lebanon, and Baal Saphon, the Ugaritic storm-god (cf. KAI 50, 69; Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33:7),
appear to be Canaanite storm-gods.*%4 The baal of Carmel in 1 Kings 18, the Phoenician baal of
Ahab and Jezebel, and the baal criticized by Hosea were also storm-gods, perhaps the same one.
The grouping of various storm-gods known by the name Baal is attested in the treaty of Esarhaddon
with Baal of Tyre and also at Ugarit and in an Egyptian-Hittite treaty. CTA 29 (KTU 1.47).6-11 and
KTU 1.118.5-10 list six baals (b'Im) after Baal Saphon (617 spn; cf. KTU 1.148.3-4, 11-12). An
Akkadian version of the same text from Ugarit, RS 20.24,22 lists the storm-god six times (IM JI-
VIT) after the weather-god called “lord of Mount Hazzi” (YM be-el hursán hazi).2 Similarly, in
the treaty (ca. 1280) between Ramses II and the Hittite king, Hattusilis, the divine witnesses include
both “Seth [i.e., Baal], lord of the sky” and Seth of various towns.227 The mention of “this Hadad”

(hdd zn) in one of the Panammu inscriptions (KAI 213:14, 16) reflects an awareness of multiple
Hadads.

Hosea plays on the relationship between the great god Baal, his manifestations in numerous cult
sites, and finally the generic use of his name to refer to other “lords.”328 Hosea 2:18-19 (E 16-17)
makes explicit the connection between “the baal” and the generic phrase for gods, “the baals.”
Seventh- and sixth-century attestations to the term “the baals” reflect the widespread, but not
exclusively generic, use of the expression. Jeremiah 23:13 indicates that the west Semitic storm-
god, Baal, continued to be known as a deity in Israel. At the same time, two sections of Jeremiah
criticize Baal worship, “for as many as your cities are your gods, 0 Judah” (2:28; cf. 11:13).
Jeremiah mixes the singular, “the baal” (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 32:29), with the plural, “the baals”
(2:23; 9:14). The plurals, “the baals,” in Jeremiah 2:23 and 9:14, like “the baals and the asherahs” in
Judges 3:7 and “the baals and the astartes” in Judges 2:13, 10:6, 1 Samuel 7:4 and 12:10, reflect a
further development in the use of the term “the baals.”222 These expressions indicate that the
designation of “baal” in the period of the late monarchy came to signify all “the baals” or various
gods of the land, with different cults and identities. This usage perhaps compares with ilani u
istarati, an Akkadian phrase for “gods and goddesses” based on the word for “god” plus the generic

use of the plural form of the proper name of the goddess Ishtar.*32

Biblical tradition grouped and conflated a number of different gods as "baals," just as it
apparently conflated various El traditions and grouped and conflated the asherahs with the astartes.
The plural form of “the baals” (habbé‘Glim) refers to the divine “lords” or gods of various places,
some surviving in the Iron Age only in the form of place names.*2! These would include Baal (1
Chron. 4:33), Baal Gad (Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5), Baal Hamon (Song of Songs 8:11), Baal Hazor (2
Sam. 13:23), Baal Hermon (Deut. 3:9; Judg. 3:3; 1 Chron. 5:23), Baal Lebanon (2 Kings 19:23; Ps.
29:5-6), Baal Ma‘on (Num. 32:38; 1 Chron. 5:8; Ezek. 25:9; cf. KAI 181:3, 30), Baal Peor (Num.
25:3, 5; Deut. 4:3; Ps. 106:28; cf. Hos. 9:10), Baal Perazim (2 Sam. 5:20; 1 Chron. 14:11), Baal
Shalisha (2 Kings 4:42), and Baal Tamar (Judg. 20:33).32 These baals included different
manifestations of the storm-god in various locales, with cult traditions presumably as varied as for

El or for Yahweh in their various sanctuaries.223

The descriptions of Baal and baals in 1 Kings 17-19, Hosea 2, and other biblical texts raise a final
issue concerning Baal's character in ancient Israel. In the Ugaritic sources Baal's meteorological
manifestations are expressions of his martial power. In contrast, 1 Kings 17-19 and Hosea 2 deplore
belief in Baal’s ability to produce rains, but these and other biblical passages are silent on the
martial import of his manifestation. Indeed, no biblical text expresses ideas about Baal’s status as a
warrior. Yahweh had perhaps exhibited and possibly usurped this role at such an early point for the
tradents of Israel’s religious literature. This conclusion might be inferred from the numerous
similarities between Baal and Yahweh that many scholars have long observed.

2. Imagery of Baal and Yahweh

Various West Semitic descriptions emphasize either Baal’s theophany in the storm (KTU 1.4 V 6-9,
1.6 IM 6f., 12f., 1.19 I 42-46) or his role as warrior (KTU 1.2 IV, 1.5 I 1-5, 1.119.26-29, 34-36; RS
16.144.933), These two dimensions of Baal are explicitly linked in KTU 1.4 VII 29-35, 1.101.1-4,
and EA 147.13-15 as well as some iconography.2?? F. M. Cross treats different descriptions of Baal
as a single Gattung with four elements, which appear in these passages in varying degrees. The four
components are: (a) the march of the divine warrior, (b) the convulsing of nature as the divine
warrior manifests his power, (c) the return of the divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume
divine kingship, and (d) the utterance of the divine warrior’s “voice” (i.e., thunder) from his palace,
providing rains that fertilize the earth.22° Biblical material deriding other deities reserves power
over the storm for Yahweh (Jer. 10:11-16; 14:22; Amos 4:7; 5:8; 9:6). Biblical descriptions of
Yahweh as storm-god (1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job 38:25-27, 34-38) and divine warrior (Pss. 50:1-
3; 97:1-6; 98:1-2; 104:1-4; Deut. 33:2; Judges 4-5; Job 26:11-13; Isa. 42:10-15, etc.) exhibit this
underlying unity and pattern explicitly in Psalm 18 (7 2 Sam. 22):6-19, 68:7-10, and 86:9-19.337
Psalm 29, 1 Kings 19, and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 dramatize the meteorological progression underlying the
imagery of Yahweh as warrior. All three passages presuppose the image of the storm moving
eastward from the Mediterranean Sea to the coast. In 1 Kings 19 and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 this force is
portrayed with human imagery. The procession of the divine warrior is accompanied by a contingent
of lesser divine beings (Deut. 32:34; 33:2; Hab. 3:5; KTU 1.5 V 6-9; cf. Judg. 5:20). The Ugaritic
antecedent to Resheph in Yahweh’s entourage in Habakkuk 3:5 may be KTU 1. 82.1-3, which
perhaps includes Resheph as a warrior with Baal against tn, related to biblical tanníním.238 Though
the power of other Near Eastern warrior-gods was manifest in the storm (e.g., Amun,
Ningirsu/Ninurta, Marduk, and Addu/Adad);3?? the proximity of terminology and imagery between
the Ugaritic and biblical evidence points to an indigenous cultural influence on meteorological
descriptions of Yahweh.

Israelite tradition modified its Canaanite heritage by molding the march of the divine warrior
specifically to the element of Yahweh's southern sanctuary, variously called Sinai (Deut. 33:2; cf.
Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9), Paran (Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3), Edom (Judg. 5:4), and Teiman (Hab. 3:3399 and in
the Kuntillet *Ajrüd inscriptions; cf. Amos 1:12; Ezek. 25:13). This modification may underlie the
difference between Baal’s epithet rkb ‘rpt, “cloud-rider” (e.g., CTA 2.4[KTU 1.2 IV].8), and
Yahweb's title, rokeb báa 'arabót, “rider over the steppes,” in Psalm 68:5 (cf. Deut. 33:26; Ps.
104:3),24. although a shared background for this feature is evident from other descriptions of Baal
and Yahweh. The notion of Baal riding on a winged war chariot is implicit in mdl, one element in
Baal’s meteorological entourage in KTU 1.5 V 6-11. Psalm 77:19 refers to the wheels in
Yahweh’s storm theophany, which presumes a divine war chariot. Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):11 presents
Yahweh riding on the wind surrounded by storm clouds. This image forms the basis for the
description of the divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 and 10. Psalm 65:12 (E 11) likewise presupposes the
storm-chariot image: “You crown your bounteous year, and your tracks drip with fatness.” Similarly,
Yahweh’s storm chariot is the image presumed by Habakkuk 3:8 and 15:

Was your wrath against the rivers, O Yahweh?
Was your anger against the rivers,

or your indignation against the sea,

when you rode upon your horses,

upon your chariot of victory?

You trampled the sea with your horses,

the surging of the mighty waters.

The description of Yahweh’s horses fits into the larger context of the storm theophany directed
against the cosmic enemies, Sea and River. (The horses in this verse are unrelated to the horses
dedicated to the sun in 2 Kings 23:11, unless there was a coalescence of the chariot imagery of the
storm and the sun.243) The motif of chariot-riding storm-god with his divine entourage extends in

Israelite tradition to the divine armies of Yahweh riding on chariots with horses (2 Kings 2:11;
6:17).

Other features originally attributed to Baal also accrued to Yahweh. Albright and other
scholarsi%% have argued the epithet ‘Jy, “the Most High,” belonging to Baal in the Ugaritic texts
(KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4”), appears as a title of Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1,
Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and 68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25),
in the biblical hypocoristicon '£/ the name of the priest of Shiloh,% and in Hebrew inscriptional
personal names yhw ‘ly, “Yahu is Most High,” yw‘h, “Yaw is Most High,” “lyhw, “Most High is
Yahu,” and ‘yw, “Most High is Yaw.”34°

The bull iconography that Jeroboam I sponsored in Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-31) has been
attributed to the influence of Baal in the northern kingdom. This imagery represented an old
northern tradition of divine iconography for Yahweh used probably as a rival symbol to the
traditional royal iconography of the cherubim of the Jerusalem temple.2% The old northern tradition
of bull iconography for Yahweh is reflected in the name ‘glyw, which may be translated, “Young
bull is Yaw,” in Samaria ostracon 41:1.348 The ca. twelfth-century bull figurine discovered at a site
in the hill country of Ephraim and the young bull depicted on the tenth-century Taanach stand
likewise involve the iconography of a god, either Yahweh or Baal4? Newer discoveries have
yielded iconography of a deity on a bull on a ninth-century plaque from Dan and an eighth-century
stele from Bethsaida.2=2 Indeed, evidence for Yahweh as bull appears in Amherst Papyrus 63
(column XI): *Horus-Yaho, our bull is with us. May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow.” 21
Despite later syncretism with Horus, the text apparently preserves a prayer to Yahweh in his
emblem-animal as a bull invoked as the patron-god of Bethel. The further question is whether these
depictions were specific to either El or Baal (or both) in the Iron Age. The language has been
thought also to derive from El, frequently called “bull” (tr) in the Ugaritic texts. There is some
evidence pointing to the application of this iconography to El in the Iron Age. The title, ‘abir
ya 'áqob, "bull of Jacob" (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 132:2, 4), derived from the bovine imagery of El. The
image of Yahweh having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” (kété ‘apét ré’ém) in Numbers 24:8
also belongs to this background. Other Late Bronze and Iron I iconographic evidence might favor a
connection with Baal.232 The reference to kissing Baal in 1 Kings 19:18 and the allusion to kissing
calves in Hosea 13:2353 would seem to bolster the Baalistic background to the bull iconography in
the northern kingdom. However, the mention of kissing bulls in the apparent context of the Bethel
cult in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column V) would point to the Yahwistic background of this practice.
It is also possible that a number of major gods could be regarded as “the divine bull,”5 as this title
applies also to Ashim-Bethel in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column XV).35 The polemics against the calf
in Samaria in Hosea 8:5 and 10:5 may reflect indignation at the Yahwistic symbol that was
associated also with Baal. Similarly, Tobit 1:5 (LXX Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) mentions the
worship of “the Baal the calf" (te Baal te damalei) in the northern kingdom. Despite the evidence
for the attribution of “bull” to Baal in the first millennium, a genetic solution tracing the imagery
specifically to either El or Baal may not be applicable. B. Vawter argues that “bull” means no more
than chief “male,”237 a point perhaps supported by the secular use of this term in KTU 1.15 IV 6, 8,
17, 19 and 4.360.3.5? The anti-Baalistic polemic of Hosea 13:2 and Tobit 1:5 may also constitute a
secondary rejection of this Yahwistic symbol, because bull iconography may have represented both
gods in the larger environment of Phoenicia and the northern kingdom. In any case, the Canaanite
tradition of the bull iconography ultimately provides the background for this rendering of Yahweh.

Common to both Yahweh and Baal was also a constellation of motifs surrounding their martial
and meteorological natures. The best-known and oldest of these motifs is perhaps the defeat of
cosmic foes who are variously termed Leviathan, ‘g/tn, tnn, the seven-headed beast, Yamm, and
Mot. A second-millennium seal from Mari depicts a god thrusting a spear into waters, apparently
representing the conflict of the West Semitic war-god with the cosmic waters (cf. the piercing, */ll,
of the serpent in Job 26:13 and of tannin in Isa. 51:9).23? This conflict corresponds at Ugarit with
Baal’s struggle with Yamm in KTU 1.2 IV, although Yamm appears as Anat’s adversary in KTU 1.3
III 43. Yamm appears as a destructive force in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.14 I 19-20; cf. 1.2 IV 3-4)
and a proud antagonist to the divine warrior in the biblical record (Job 38:11; Ps. 89:10 [E 9].
Baal's victory over Yamm in KTU 1.2 IV 27-34 presents the possibility of Yamm's annihilation
(*kly; cf. KTU 1.3 III 38-39, 46) and then proclaims his death, an image that appears rarely in
biblical material (Rev. 21:1; cf. Testament of Moses 10:6).39? Various biblical texts depict the divine
defeat of Yamm with other images: the stilling (*sbh/ *rg’) of Yamm (Pss. 65:8 [E 7]; 89:10 [E 9];

Job 26:11); the crushing?9! (*prr) of Yamm (Ps. 74:13; cf. the crushing, *dk’, of Rahab in Ps. 89:11
[E 10]); the drying up (*Arb) of Yamm (Isa. 51:10); the establishment of a boundary (gebúl) for
Yamm (Ps. 104:9; Jer. 5:22; cf. Prov. 8:29); the placement of a guard (mismar) over Yamm (Job
7:12); and the closing of Yamm behind doors (Job 38:8, 10); compare the hacking of Rahab into
pieces (*hsb; Isa. 51:9); and the scattering (*pzr) of cosmic enemies (Ps. 89:11 [E 10]).

A seal from Tel Asmar (ca. 2200) depicts a god battling a seven-headed dragon, a foe identified
as Baal’s enemy in CTA 5.1 (KTU 1.5 J).3 (and reconstructed in 30) and Yahweh’s adversary in
Psalm 74:13 and Revelation 13:1.3€ A shell plaque of unknown provenance depicts a god kneeling
before a fiery seven-headed dragon.393 Leviathan, Baal's enemy mentioned in CTA 5.1 (KTU 1.5
I).1 (and reconstructed in 28), appears as Yahweh's opponent and creature in Isaiah 27:1, Job 3:8,
26:13, 40:25 (E 41:1), Psalm 104:26, and 2 Esdras 6:49, 52.2% In Psalm 74:13-14 (cf. Ezek. 32:2),
both Leviathan and the tanninim have multiple heads, the latter known as Anat’s enemy in 1.83.9-10
and in a list of cosmic foes in CTA 3.3(D).35-39 (= KTU 1.3 III 38-42). This Ugaritic list includes
“Sea,” Yamm//“River,” Nahar, Baal’s great enemy in CTA 2.4 (KTU 1.2 IV). In Isaiah 11:15 the
traditions of Sea//River and the seven-headed dragon appear in conflated form:

And the Yahweh will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt, and will wave his hand
over the River with his scorching wind, and smite it into seven channels that men may cross
dry-shod.

Here the destruction of Egypt combines both mythic motifs with the ancient tradition of crossing the
Red Sea in Egypt. The seven-headed figure is attested in other biblical passages. In Psalm 89:10 the
seven-headed figure is Rahab, mentioned in Isaiah 51:9-11 in the company of tannin and Yamm.
The seven-headed enemy also appears in Revelation 12:3, 13:1, 17:3 and in extrabiblical material,
including Qiddushin 29b, Odes of Solomon 22:5, and Pistis Sophia 66.2% Yamm appears in late
apocalyptic writing as the source of the destructive beasts symbolizing successive empires (Dan.
7:3). J. Day has suggested that this imagery developed from the symbolization of political states
hostile to Israel as beasts.2% For example, Rahab stands for Egypt (Isa. 30:7; Ps. 87:4), the River for
Assyria (Isa. 8:5-8; cf. 17:12-14), tannin for Babylon (jer. 51:34). This type of equation is at
work in a less explicit way in Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):4-18. In this composition, monarchic victory
over political enemies (w. 4, 18) is described in terms of a storm theophany over cosmic waters (w.
8-17). Because of the political use of the cosmic enemies, Day suspects that a political allusion lies
behind the figure of Leviathan in Isaiah 27: 1.368

Finally, the figure of Mot, “Death,” is attested in KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6 and 2.10 and in several
biblical passages, including Isaiah 25:8, 28:15 and 18, Jeremiah 9:20, Hosea 13:14, Habakkuk 2:5,
Psalm 18(2 Sam. 22):5-6, Revelation 21:4 (cf. Odes of Solomon 15:9; 29:4)3€? Biblical Mot is
personified as a demon, in the manner of Ugaritic Mot in KTU 1.127 and Mesopotamian miitu. As J.
Tigay has observed, this background would explain the description of Mot in Jeremiah 9:20 better
than either U. Cassuto's recourse to the episode of the window in Baal’s palace (KTU 1.4 V-VII) or
S. Paul’s comparison with the Mesopotamian demon Lamashtu.2”2 Biblical descriptions of the east
wind as an instrument of divine destruction may have derived from the imagery of Mot in Canaanite
tradition, although mythological dependency is not necessarily indicated in this instance. The
juxtaposition of the east wind and personified Death in Hosea 13:14-15 may presuppose the

mythological background of Mot as manifest in the sirocco.27!

Like the motif of the divine foes, the biblical motif of the divine mountainous abode derives
primarily from the Northwest Semitic tradition of divinely inhabited mountains, especially the
Baal’s mountainous home of Sapan (spn), modern Jebel el-Aqra*. This dependency on language
connected with Sapan in Ugaritic tradition is especially manifest in the identification of Mount Zion
as yarkété sapon, “the recesses of the north,” in Psalm 48:3 (cf. Isa. 14:13) and the MT’s apparent
substitution of Zion for spn in the Aramaic version of Psalm 20:3 written in Demotic.2 According
to Josephus (Antiquities 7.174), Belsephon was a city in the territory of Ephraim.22 Saphon is the
site of conflict between Baal and his cosmic enemies, Yamm (KTU 1.1 V 5, 18) and Mot (KTU 1.6
VI 12). The same mountain, modern Jebel el-Aqra', Mount Hazzi in Hittite tradition, occurs in the
narrative of conflict between the storm-god and Ullikumi.22 In classical tradition, the same peak,
Mons Cassius, was one site of conflict between Zeus and Typhon (Apollodorus, The Library 1.6.3;
Strabo, Geography 16.2.7).22 Herodotus (History 3.5) records that Typhon was buried by the

Sirbonian Sea, which was adjacent to the Egyptian Mount Saphon.27 Similarly, Zion is the place

where Yahweh will take up battle (Joel 3:9-17, 19-21; Zech. 14:4; 2 Esdras 13:35; cf. Isa. 66:18-21;
Ezekiel 38-39). The descriptions of Yahweh's taking his stand as warrior on top of Mount Zion (Isa.
31:4; Zech. 14:4; 2 Esdras 13:35) also echo depictions of the Hittite and Syrian storm-gods standing

with each foot on a mountain. Saphon and Zion share a number of epithets. For example, KTU

1.3 III 13-31 (cf. IV 7-20), cited in full in the previous section, applies qds, “holy place," n'm,
“pleasant place,” and nhlt, “inheritance,” to Baal's mountain. Similarly, Psalms 46:5 and 48:2
describe Zion as *qodes (cf. Exod. 15:13; Pss. 87:1; 93:5; KAI 17:1, 78:5 [?]), while Psalm 27:4
calls Yahweh’s mountain nd ‘am (cf. Ps. 16:6).2/8 As Greenfield has observed, nd ‘am in Psalm 27:4
is followed in the next verse by wordplay or paronomasia on the root *spn.22 Yahweh's mountain is
called a nahalah, “portion” (Ps. 79:1; Jer. 12:7; cf. Exod. 15:17; Ps. 16:6). The epithets for Zion and
the way they are listed together in Psalm 48:2-3 likewise recall the titles for Sapan in KTU 1.3 III

29-3 | 380

The mountainous temple home from which Baal utters his voice and rains lavishly upon the earth
(KTU 1.4 V-VID appears not only in descriptions of Yahweh roaring from Zion (Joel 3:16; Amos
1:2) or giving forth rains (Isa. 30:19; Jer. 3:3; 5:24; 10:13; 14:4; 51:16; Amos 4:7) but also in
postexilic discussions of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The tradition of the temple home
that guarantees the life-giving rains underlies the relationship between tithe and temple in Malachi
3:10. This passage reflects the notion that payment of the tithe to the temple would induce Yahweh
to open the windows of heaven and pour down crop-producing rains. Similarly, Haggai 1:7-11
attributes drought and scarcity to the failure to rebuild the temple.*®! Yahweh’s role as the divine
source of rain appears elsewhere in postexilic prophecy (Zech. 10:1). Joel 4 (E 3) presents various
aspects of the mountain tradition. It is the divine home (4:17 [E 3:17]), the location of Yahweh’s
roar (4:16 [E 3:16]), the site of divine battle (4:9-15 [E 3:9-15]) with heavenly hosts (4:11-13 [E
3:11-13]; cf. 2:1-11), and the origin of the divine rains issuing in terrestrial fertility (4:18 [E 3:18]).

In sum, the motifs associated with Baal in Canaanite literature are widely manifest in Israelite
religion. The Baal cycle (KTU 1.1-6) presents the sequence of defeating the enemy, Sea, followed
by the building of the divine palace for the divine warrior, and concluding with the vanquishing of
the enemy, Death. This pattern of features appears in a wide variety of biblical texts describing
divine presence and action. Rabbinic aggadah and Christian literature continue these motifs. Indeed,
the defeat of Sea, the building of the heavenly palace, and the destruction of death belong to the
future divine transformation of the world in Revelation 21:1-4. These motifs are of further
importance for the long life that some of them enjoyed; for example, the motif of Leviathan is
attested in religious documents into the modern period.382

3. The Role of the Monarchy

The presentation of Yahweh in imagery associated with Baal in Canaanite tradition played a role in
Israel’s politics. Yahweh, a tribal god of the highlands, emerged as the national god of Israel (1
Kings 20:23).383 As in Mesopotamia and Egypt, this god became the divine “king” (Ps. 10:16; cf.
Exod. 15:18; 1 Sam. 8:7; Pss. 47:9; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1; 146:10, etc.) and national god.384 In
order to describe the powerful god that brought them to prominence, the Davidic dynasts drew on
older, traditional language used for the divine warrior, known from judges 5:3-5 and elsewhere (cf.
1 Sam. 7:10; 12:18).38 A dramatic example of the patron god fighting on behalf of the Davidic king
is Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam. 22). Verses 8-19 describe Yahweh in terms associated with Baal’s battle
(KTU 1.2 IV; cf. 1.4 VII 8-9, 38-39), fighting for the king and saving him from destruction. Verses
29-45 depict Yahweh’s enabling the monarch to conquer his enemies in battle.38% Psalm 2, a royal
psalm, alludes to the enemies who stand against Yahweh and “his anointed,” [ከ6 king 287 Psalm 89
likewise parallels the victorious power of Yahweh in verses 5-18 with the divine favor that Yahweh
bestows upon the Davidic monarch in verses 19-37. In verse 26 Yahweh extends his power to the
monarch in language associated with the god Baal: “I will set his hand on Sea and his right hand on
River(s).” As many commentators have observed,?93 Sea and River(s) are titles of Baal's enemy in
the first major section of the Ugaritic Baal cycle (KTU 1.1-2). The psalm thus draws on the imagery
of Yahweh's victory over Sea and other cosmic enemies in verses 9-10 and extends this imagery to
the king in verse 26 at a time of royal decline, indicated by verses 38-51. Psalm 72:8 likewise
alludes to Sea and River in describing the expanse of the Davidic territory: *May he have dominion
from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!” (wéyerd miyyam ‘ad-yam timinnahar
'ad- 'apsé-'áres).38? While "the River" historically refers to the Euphrates, it may also evoke the
mythic pair of “Sea” and "River." It appears that 2 Samuel 5:20 plays on the storm imagery of Baal.
After his defeat of the Philistines at Baal-perazim, David is quoted as saying, “The Lord has broken
through my enemies before me, like a bursting flood.” The same verse then gives these words as the
basis for the place-name: “Therefore the name of that place is called Baal-perazim.”220

Other motifs known from the Ugaritic traditions of Baal appear in Israelite royal theology. J. J.
M. Roberts has argued that the Baal motifs of divine warrior and his mountain developed within the
Zion tradition during the reigns of David and Solomon. According to T. N. D. Mettinger,?2? the
divine title sb t accrued to Yahweh during the reign of David and expressed Yahweh’s functions as
divine patron and national god of the Davidic dynasty. S. Moon-Kang attributes the same function
and setting to the divine titles gbr and “21.2 That the theological self-understanding of the dynasty
and not simply worship of Baal inspired this divine warrior language in Israel may be deduced from
the fact that the language of the divine warrior emerged independently in various ancient Near
Eastern locales, and not infrequently under the impetus of newly emerging political units. The
inclusion of traditional language of the warrior-god suited Yahweh, the patron deity of a newly
emerging nation-state. The concept of Yahweh as the divine warrior therefore did not derive simply
from the worship of Baal; it was also the product of the Davidic polity. Indeed, it may be surmised
that Baal continued to be popular in Israel precisely because the monarchy embraced his titles and
imagery to describe its patron god. The Iron Age development of the Mesopotamian city gods,
Marduk of Babylon and Assur of Assur, illustrates further the dependency of martial language for
Yahweh on the Israelite/Canaanite literary tradition. Like Yahweh, these two warrior deities had
cults that gave expression to the newly emerging military powers in Babylon and Assur.2% These
two gods were attributed imagery found in the literary traditions of the local regions. Similarly,
biblical descriptions of Yahweh, the national deity of the newly emerging state, drew on the
traditions of the Israelite/Canaanite matrix.

Scholars have long focused on the parallels between Baal in the Ugaritic texts and Yahweh in
biblical material. Not only can the imagery and titles of Yahweh as storm-god be found in the
Ugaritic texts; the political background of these descriptions of Yahweh can also be traced to the
second-millennium west Semitic material from the city of Mari on the Euphrates River. A second-
millennium letter from Mari confirms the political function of the storm-god’s conflict with the

cosmic sea. The letter, which dates toward the end of the reign of the king Zimri-Lim of Mari, is
addressed to him by the prophet Nur-Sin of Aleppo. Quoting the storm-god Adad, the text states:
“When you [Zimri-Lim] sat on the throne of your father, I gave you the weapon(s) with which I
fought against Sea (támtum).” This text provides the first external textual witness to the West
Semitic conflict myth in the Middle Bronze Age. In the version from Mari, the storm-god is
identified as Addu, the Akkadian equivalent to Haddu (hd), equivalent to Baal in Ugaritic mythic
texts. A list of divinities at Ugarit also supplies the equivalence of Addu with Baal 201 The god “IM
be-el hursän Mazi, “Adad, lord of mount Hazzi,” corresponds to b 7 spn, “Baal Saphon.” The same
lists provides the correlation of ym, “Yamm” (Sea), and “tamtum, “Tiamat” (Sea). A comparable
witness to the deified sea occurs in an Akkadian text from Ras Shamra. In RS 17.33 obv. 4”, the list
of deities serving as witnesses to a treaty between the Hittite king Mursilis and his Ugaritic royal
vassal Niqmepa includes [44].4B.BA.GAL, that is, [tá]mtu rabitu, "the great Sea."328 The West
Semitic deity of the cosmic ocean is also attested at Mari. Some proper names at Mari include ym as
the theophoric element.2~ According to A. Malamat, the offering that Yahdun-Lim of Mari makes
to the “Ocean” (a-ab-ba) at the Mediterranean Sea reflects the West Semitic cult of the sea-god.1%
A text from Emar attests to offerings to Yamm (/a-a-mi). 2

By contrast with the conflict between Baal and Yamm portrayed in the Baal cycle (KTU 1.2 IV),
the Mari text focuses on the human, political function of the cosmic weapons as gifts from the
storm-god to the king. The power of the storm-god, the king’s patron, reinforces the power of the
king. Divine weapons elsewhere play an important role in expressing royal power. In both Old
Babylonian and neo-Assyrian texts, kings are described as wielding the weapons of particular
martial gods.422 One letter preserved at Mari was sent to Yashub-Yahad, king of Dir, from Yarim-
lim, king of Aleppo. In this letter Yarim-lim declares, “I will show you the terrible weapons of Addu
(GIS. TUKUL. HIA. *IM) and of Yarim-lim."*9? In these texts, the king demonstrates his great power
by invoking the power of the divine weapon. The Mari letter citing the words of Nur-Sin of Aleppo
mentions the power of the divine weapons of Addu, but it also refers to the West Semitic conflict
myth. The divine gift of weapons enhances the relationship between the patron god and his king by
invoking the patron god's victory over the cosmic enemy. The power of the king over his enemies
mirrors on the cosmic level the victory of the storm-god over his adversary.

The Baal cycle indicates that the martial language for Yahweh derived from the Canaanite sphere.
That this mythic material was employed in such a political manner in the Canaanite sphere 1s less
evident from the Baal cycle. Kingship, however, is a central concern of the Ugaritic Baal cycle,
which may point to a political use for the Baal-Yamm conflict (and perhaps for the whole of the
cycle), similar to the political function of the Mari letter. The production of the Baal cycle may
have served the function of reinforcing the kingship not only of the god Baal but also the Ugaritic
dynasty. Indeed, the names of the Ugaritic kings reflect the special relationship between Baal and
the Ugaritic dynasty. The kings Niqmaddu I and II took an Addu name. The name ngmd consists of
two parts, the verb *nqm and the theophoric element (h)d; it may be translated “Addu avenged.”405
Another dynast bears the name y 'drd, which means “May Addu help.”4% It may be noted that only
these three dynasts have names with theophoric elements, and in all three instances the theophoric
element is (h)d. The dynasty perhaps considered Baal/Haddu to be its special divine patron, and the
transmission and final production of the Baal cycle may have resulted in part from the political
values that it expressed on behalf of the dynasty.

Comparable political contexts have been proposed for the Enuma Elish, a Mesopotamian work
exhibiting many similarities with the Baal cycle.427 T. Jacobsen proposes that the similarities are
due to dependence. He argues that the conflict between Marduk and Tiamat was modeled on a West
Semitic version of the conflict tradition, as attested in the Baal cycle.4% Like the Mari letter, Enuma
Elish features Tiamat as the cosmic sea, but unlike the Mari letter, Enuma Elish presents Marduk,
the Babylonian divine patron, as Tiamat's enemy. The equivalence between Marduk and Addu is
expressly made in Enuma Elish 7:119, where Marduk's forty-seventh name is Addu.*% Likewise,
this equivalence is attested in another text delineating various deities as aspects of Marduk: *Adad
(is) Marduk of rain.”41% The common Amorite traditions underlying the dynasties of Ugarit, Mari,
and Babylon would appear to bolster Jacobsen’s view.*!! Behind the Ugaritic myth of Baal and
Yamm, and explicit in the Mari letter, is a political function of divine support for a human monarch.
To judge from its biblical attestations, the political use of the conflict myth belonged to the
Canaanite patrimony of monarchic Israel. It was noted that the cosmic enemies appear as political
symbols for states hostile to Israel, for example, Rahab for Egypt (Isa. 30:7; Ps. 87:4). The

background for the equation of political enemies with cosmic ones may perhaps be located in the
parallelism between the enemies of the god and king, illustrated in Israelite tradition by Psalm 18 (2
Sam 22):17-18 and in earlier West Semitic tradition in the Mari letter.

In view of the political background for motifs associated with the storm-god at Ugarit, Mari,
Babylon, and Israel, scholarly reconstructions for the setting of the language describing Yahweh's
storm theophany deserve some further consideration. Some scholars have argued that the Feast of
Tabernacles every fall (Exod. 23:16; 34:22) included the enthronement of Yahweh. 4/2 According to
S. Mowinckel,*2 the theory’s most vigorous proponent, the enthronement aspect of the festival is
reflected in numerous psalms containing the motif of Yahweh’s battle, often in the storm, against the
cosmic enemies. These texts include Psalms 65, 93, and 96-99. The burden of proof for this theory
has fallen largely on two pieces of data. The superscription of Psalm 29 in the Septuagint associates
this psalm with the Feast of Tabernacles. Zechariah 14:16-17 specifically refers to the celebration of
Yahweh’s kingship in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles:

Then every one that survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up
year after year to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, and to keep the feast of booths. And if
any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Yahweh of
hosts, there will be no rain upon them.

As J. Day notes,*!4 the reference to rain in verse 17 accords with the motif of Yahweh’s control over

the cosmic enemies of the water. Although this passage is postexilic, some of its motifs may have
enjoyed a long history in Israelite tradition. A pre-exilic setting for the celebration of divine
kingship in the context of Tabernacles is plausible. The setting of Psalm 65, which celebrates in the
temple the bounty of the autumn harvest, is possibly a Tabernacles psalm. Day observes that Psalm
65:6-9 (E 5-8) recalls Yahweh’s victory over the cosmic waters.4/5 It may be further noted that the
motif of verse 9 (E 8) is precisely a meteorological one. The “signs” witnessed at the ends of the
earth are the thundering of the heavens and earth that announce the imminent arrival of the life-
supporting rains (cf. KTU 1.15 III 2-11; cf. 1.3 III 13-31, IV 7-20). Psalm 65 and Zechariah 14:16-
17 indicate the meteorological importance of rain in the early autumn. That divine power over the
waters was celebrated in the autumnal feast in Jerusalem would seem evident from Psalm 65 and
might be inferred from other psalms.4!£ While some psalms celebrating Yahweh’s kingship may not
belong to this setting, and although too much has been made of the theory of the New Year festival,
the Feast of Tabernacles perhaps included some celebration of divine kingship manifest in the divine
climatic weaponry that subdues the cosmic waters.

This political background for the imagery pitting Yahweh against the cosmic waters may have
antecedents within Canaanite culture. Meteorological theories of the sort proposed for some biblical
psalms have been offered for the Baal cycle as well. T. H. Gaster and J. C. de Moor associate
various points of the cycle with various times of year, including the fall.4 Though de Moor's
attempt to correlate the Baal cycle with one annual cycle has not met with acceptance, Gaster's
association of two parts in the Baal cycle with the fall seems more probable. Building on Gaster's
work, M. S. Smith has argued further that each of the three major sections of the Baal cycle, namely,
the Baal-Yamm conflict (KTU 1.1-2), the building of Baal's palace (1.3-4), and the Baal-Mot (1.5-
6), draws on the weather of the fall, specifically the arrival of the rains. Internal evidence points to
all three sections building toward the appearance of rain that had been previously lacking. The
meteorological imagery lying behind the weapons called smdm in KTU 1.2 IV has been noted by
many scholars. Y. Yadin argued on the basis of the root smd, “to bind” (cf. Arabic damada), that the
weapon is double lightning. The lightning presages the appearance of the autumn rains. In the
second section of the cycle, Asherah is glad for El’s permission to build a palace for Baal so that
Baal can produce the rains, evidently lacking up to this point (1.4 V 6-9). After the palace is built,
Baal finally utters his thunder, literally “holy voice,” through the rift in the clouds (1.4 VII 25-31).
The completion of the palace, permitting the full manifestation of Baal’s power in the storm, is after
all the cosmic message that Baal had earlier intimated to Anat (1.3 III 13-31, IV 7-20). The third
section of the Baal cycle, 1.5-1.6, expresses the issue of Baal’s rain in a different way. In 1.5 VI 23-
25 El laments the condition of humanity due to Baal’s death, which means no rain (cf. 1.6 I 6-8).
El's dream-vision indicates to him that the earth will flow with fertility produced by Baal’s rains
(1.6 III). The one season that fits the situation described in these passages is the autumn when the
rains finally overtake the heat of late summer.

Like the biblical psalms used in the theory of the enthronement celebration, the Baal cycle has a
manifestly royal theme. Just as the enthronement psalms proclaim the kingship of Yahweh, the Baal
cycle asserts the kingship of Baal. The enthronement psalms and the Baal cycle express the political
dimension of divine kingship. The Mari letter and Psalm 89 illustrate the connection between the
human and divine levels of the West Semitic storm imagery, and it may be that the enthronement
psalms and the Baal cycle likewise presupposed the human as well as the divine level of kingship.
The two levels of kingship may have been celebrated in ancient Israel at the one time of year when
the storm deity appeared most strongly, in the early fall. Moreover, the intertwined nature of divine
and human kingship in compositions during the period of the monarchy suggest that the Tabernacles
festival would have served as an appropriate occasion for communicating the relationship between
the divine and human kings. In short, the storm imagery associated with Baal in Canaanite texts and
Yahweh in Israelite tradition exhibited a political function. The martial imagery of the goddess Anat
may have exercised a similar role.

4. Excursus: Yahweh and Anat

Although the Bible presents Baal, and, to a lesser extent, Asherah, as separate deities, there is no
such depiction of Anat. Except for personal names, Anat does not appear in the Bible.4!2 The
Jewish Aramaic papyri from Elephantine contain the divine names, 'ntbyt'] (AP 22:125) and ‘ntyhw
(AP 44:3) and the personal name ‘nty (AP 22:108), which some scholars have interpreted as indirect
evidence for a Jewish cult of Anat at Elephantine, a practice then inferred for ancient Israel.
Attempts to mitigate this view by suggesting that **nt is a common noun that expresses a hypostasis
of Yahweh?2? are problematic, since this derivation is controverted.2! It appears rather that * nt in
the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine derived from the name of the goddess Anat attested in other
Egyptian Aramaic documents of the Persian period. The derivation of *'nt from the name of the
goddess may be viewed as due to either local Aramaean or Phoenician influence; the latter is viable,
as the name Anat-Bethel belongs among the Tyrian deities mentioned in the treaty between
Esarhaddon and Baal II of Tyre.22 That her cult was known at Iron Age Bethel might be inferred
from the mention of her in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column VII).22 (Accordingly, ‘ntbyt’l in AP
22:125 may be "Anat of Bethel.”) While Anat was generally a goddess in some quarters of Egypt,
including in a form combined with the names of other deities at Elephantine, there is little or no
clear evidence that Anat was a goddess in Israel.

Although Anat was hardly a goddess in Israel, her savage battling in the Ugaritic Baal cycle
(CTA 3.2 [KTU 1.3 II].3-30) has been often compared with numerous biblical passages. To
illustrate the basis for comparison between Yahweh and Anat, first a translation of this Ugaritic text

is provided: 24
kl'at tért bht "nt The gates of Anat's house were closed;
wtqry glmm bit gr And she met the youths at the foot of the
mountain.

whin “nt tmths b'‘mq And look! Anat fights in the valley,
thtsb bn qrytm She battles between the two cities.
tmhs l'im hpy[m] She smites peoples of the wes[t],
tsmt ‘adm s'at §[p]§ Strikes the populace of the east.
thth kkdrt r'i[5] Under her, like balls, heads,

"Ih K'irbym kp Above her, like locusts, hand(s),

k qsm érmn kp mhr — Like hoppers, heaps of warrior-hands.

"kt r’ist Ibmth She fixed heads to her back,

¿nst kpt bhb3h Fastened hands to her waist.

brkm tglfl] bdm dmr Knee-deep she gleans in warrior-blood,
hlqm bmm['] mhrm — Neck-deep in the gor[e] of soldiers.
mtm tgrs ¿bm With darts she drives away captives,
bksl qsth mdnt With her bow-string, foes.

whin ‘nt lbth tmgyn And look! Anat to her house goes,

tštąl 'ilt Ihklh The goddess takes herself to her palace,

wi 3b‘t tmthsh b'mq For she is not sated with fighting in the valley,
thtsb bn qrtm With battling between the two cities.

tt^r ks‘at Imhr She arranges chairs for the soldiery,

t'r tlhnt lsb'im Arranges tables for the hosts,

hdmm lgzrm Footstools for the heroes.

m'id tmthsn wt'n Hard she fights and looks about,

thtsb wthdy ‘nt As she battles, Anat surveys.

tédd kbdh bshq Her innards swell with laughter,

yml'u lbh b$mht Her heart fills with joy,

kbd “nt t3yt The innards of Anat with triumph.

kbrkm t$ll bdm dmr — Knee-deep she gleans in warrior blood,
hlqm bmm' mhrm Neck-deep in the gore of soldiers,

‘d tib' tmths bbt Until she is sated with fighting in the house,

thtsb bn tlhnm With battling amidst the tables.

There are many parallels between this Ugaritic passage and a variety of biblical texts.445 First, the
divine battle takes place at the mountain of the deity, a motif found in Psalms 2:1-2; 48:5-8; 110;
Joel 4:9-14; Zechariah 12:3-4; 14:2; and elsewhere. In Ugaritic, this motif is not restricted to Anat.
Baal also fights his enemies on his mountain (KTU 1.6 VI 12-13; cf. 1.1 V 5, 18). Second, the battle
is universal in scope; “peoples” are collectively the enemies of the deity. Many of the biblical
passages just cited likewise contain this motif. Isaiah 59:15-19 describes the universal scope of
Yahweh’s warfare:

wayyar' yhwh wayyéra' bé'énàyw
ki-"én mispät
wayyar’ ki-"én “is

wayyistómém ki ‘én mapgia®

wattósa' 16 zéró'ó
wésidqátó hi" sémakatéhti
wayyilbà3 sédáqá kassiryàn
wékóba' yésá'à béro'$ó

wayyilbás bigdé nágám tilbóset

wayya'at kam'il qin'á

ኒያ gémülót k&al yésallém

hémá lesarayw gémúl lé
'oyébüyw

weyire'ü mimma'áráb 'et-3ém
yhwh

ümimmizrah-3emes "et-kebódó

ki-yäbö’ kannähär sär

rüah yhwh nösěså bô

Yahweh saw it, and it displeased him
that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no man,
and wondered that there was no one
to intervene;
then his own arm brought him victory,
and his righteousness upheld him.
He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
and a helmet of salvation upon his head;
he put on garments of vengeance for
clothing,
and wrapped himself in fury as a mantle.
According to his deeds, so will he repay,
wrath to his adversaries, requital to his
enemies...
So they shall fear the name of Yahweh
from the west,
and his glory from the rising of the sun;
for he will come like a rushing stream,
which the wind of Yahweh drives.

Like Anat in KTU 1.3 II, here Yahweh is described as enraged (qin’d), and the divine enemies are
described according to the “west” (ma ‘arab) and the “east,” literally “the rising of the sun” (mizrah-
Semes).

Third, the battle produces heaps of corpses (Isa. 34:2) or skulls (Deut. 32:43; Ps. 110:6). The
image of harvest appears in Anat’s “gleaning” and in some biblical scenes of divine war (Joel 3:13;
Rev. 14:14-20; cf. secular examples in Judg. 8:1-2; 20:44-46; Jer. 6:9; cf. Jer. 49:9; Obadiah 5).
Fourth, like the second part of the Ugaritic passage given above, the aftermath of war is described as
a feast, a feature attested in Isaiah 34:6-7, 49:26 and perhaps presupposed in the sacrificial language
of Deuteronomy 32:43. This feast includes feeding on the flesh of captives (Deut. 32:42), drinking
the blood of the victims (Isa. 49:26; LXX Zech. 9:15; cf. Num. 23:24), called “captives” in
Deuteronomy 32:42 (as in KTU 1.3 I), and wading in the blood of the vanquished (Pss. 58:11;
68:24). Isaiah 49:26 alters the motif of feeding on the captives. In this verse, the enemies will
cannibalize themselves: “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk
with their own blood as with wine.” The image of wading in the blood may be related to the theme
of the battle as bloody harvest. Because of its blood red color, the image of the wine harvest appears
in biblical descriptions of divine war (Deut. 32:42-43; Isa. 49:26; 63:3; Ezek. 39:19; Joel 4:13; Lam.
1:15; Rev. 19:15). Finally, the delight that Anat derives from her carnal destruction has biblical
correspondences in the language of both divine laughter (Ps. 2:4; cf. Prov. 2:26) and drunkenness
with battle (see Deut. 32:43; Isa. 34:2; 63:3-6; cf. Jer. 46:10).

The many parallels drawn between CTA 3.2 (KTU 1.3 II).3-30 and these biblical descriptions of
divine war have generated theories concerning dependence of the biblical language on prior
Canaanite tradition as represented by the Ugaritic material, much as divine storm language in the
Bible is compared with the meteorological imagery of the Ugaritic god Baal. In the case of the war
imagery associated with Anat, there are additional factors involved in assessing the relationship
beween the Ugaritic and biblical evidence. Since Anat is not attested in the Bible excepting in a few
personal names, the lack of contact between her cult and that of Yahweh forestalls any theory of
direct dependence. The language in common between Anat and Yahweh could have derived from a
third source. Or, possibly no source was involved, since the language of battle unfortunately belongs
to general human experience. From ancient descriptions of human battle and carnage in New
Kingdom Egyptian records, the Moabite stele (KAI 181:16-18), 2 Kings 10:10-27, and other texts, it
might seem that no literary relationship needs to be imputed to the bloody rendering of Yahweh.

The bloody imagery of Yahweh seems to have reflected a complex dependence on imagery for
Anat, nonetheless. There is indirect evidence for suspecting this dependence. The monarchy
apparently had a role in transmitting the bloody martial imagery for Yahweh, and there are a few
hints pointing to the royal role in the biblical passages. First, some biblical examples include
references to Yahweh together with the human monarch (Ps. 2:1-2; cf. KAT 181:16-18). Second, the
deity and the king in Psalms 2 and 110 are pitted against the nations. Third, some of the imagery
used of divine battle appears in secular accounts of battle, both royal or otherwise (e.g., the severed
heads, the harvest imagery, the drinking of blood). Like the solar imagery for Yahweh, the language
of savage battle may have stemmed from attributing to divine kings the characteristics of their
human royal counterparts according to indigenous models. Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom
period used the names of Anat and Astarte to dramatize pharaonic prowess. One text describes Anat
and Astarte as a shield to Ramses 111.426 By the biblical period, the savage, grisly descriptions of
battle accorded Anat in the Late Bronze Age perhaps became one way to describe Yahweh, the
divine warrior.

Details in the biblical record provide a few indications as to how Israelite tradition incorporated
the bloody type of martial depiction of Yahweh. Some passages, such as Deuteronomy 32:42-43 and
Psalm 68:24, combine bloody martial imagery with storm language. These examples of conflation
may suggest how the type of divine warrior language for Anat in Canaanite tradition was mediated
to Israelite tradition for Yahweh. Both types of language describing the divine warrior — the storm
language of Baal and the bloody imagery of Anat — appear in conflated form in Israelite tradition,
much as various types of imagery associated with El and Baal in Canaanite texts are conflated in

early biblical tradition. 27

CHAPTER 3

Yahweh and Asherah

1. Distribution in the Biblical Record

Narratives (Judg. 3:7; 6:25-30), legal prohibitions (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:21), and
prophetic critiques (Isa. 17:8; 27:9; Jer. 17:2; Micah 5:13) indicate that the devotion to the cult
symbol known as the asherah, a wooden pole of some sort, and the religious items collectively
called the asherim was observed as early as the period of the Judges and as late as a few decades
before the fall of the southern kingdom (2 Kings 23:4, 6, 7, 15).28 As S. Olyan has shown, the
asherah was acceptable in both northern and southern kingdoms, both outside (see 1 Kings 14:23; 2
Kings 17:10, 16; Jer. 17:2) and inside the royal cults of Samaria (1 Kings 16:33; 2 Kings 13:6) and
Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:7; 23:6; 2 Chron. 24:18).2? Besides Samaria and Jerusalem, devotion to the
asherah is attested for Ophrah (Judges 6:25) and Bethel (2 Kings 23:15). From this information, it
would appear that the symbol of the asherah was a general feature of Israelite religion.

Furthermore, there is no indication that devotion to the symbol was limited to a specific group or
social stratum within Israel. Olyan has argued that criticism of the goddess Asherah and her symbol,
the asherah, was restricted to a single quarter of Israelite society, namely, the Deuteronomistic
tradition.4% From this limited base of opposition, it might be inferred that many other quarters of
Israelite society either accepted the asherah or at least did not oppose it. Neither Jehu nor Hosea
opposed the asherah, although they are depicted as outspoken in their criticism of Baal. In 1 Kings
18:19 the prophets of Asherah are referred to only once in the conflict on Mount Carmel between
Elijah and the prophets of Baal, themselves mentioned five times in the story.42! Some critics view
the single reference as a secondary addition designed to cast aspersions on Asherah by connecting
her with the cult of Baal.432 Olyan observes that no prophet opposed the asherah until the eighth
century, and the prophetic passages that criticize the asherah appear to be Deuteronomistic or
derivative from Deuteronomistic passages. Even if not all the passages can be explained in this way,
prophetic opposition to the asherah does not appear in any sources extant from before the eighth
century. Analysis of the legal prohibitions is consistent with this conclusion. The laws pertaining to
the asherah derive from the book of Deuteronomy, with the exception of Exodus 34:13, which some
scholars, including Olyan, interpret as a Deuteronomistic addition,“ although other commentators
view it as representing an earlier critique of the asherah.4*4 The biblical evidence pertaining to the
asherah does not sustain a historical dichotomy between “normative Yahwism” over and against
“Canaanite religion” or a “popular religion” tainted by Canaanite influence.“*5 Rather, as biblical
scholars have long noted, biblical criticism of the asherah points to its being an Israelite

phenomenon 8

There is the further matter of the distinction between the asherah and the asherim. Besides the
difference in morphology, the first word being a feminine singular noun (with a feminine plural) and
the latter a masculine plural noun, biblical passages suggest a functional difference. The asherah is
erected next to the altar of a god (Deut. 16:21; Judg. 6:25-26). However, the asherim never appear
next to an altar but beside or under a tree on high places (Jer. 17:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10).
Further distinctions offered are little more than educated guesses. J. R. Engle suggests that the
female figurines found in abundance in Iron Age Israel are asherim, representing the goddess, as
opposed to the wooden pole of the asherah.97 R. Hestrin argues that the pillar figurines that she
interprets as symbols of Asherah were household items designed to enhance fertility.538 Yet scholars
have long speculated that these figurines may represent Astarte, and given the maternal imagery for
her in Phoenician, this is as plausible an identification as that with Asherah.42 Moreover, these

figurines may not represent any deity.40

2. The Symbol of the Asherah

The asherah was a wooden object symbolizing a tree. It was an item that was “made” (*sh, 1 Kings
14:15; 16:33; 2 Kings 17:6; 21:3, 7; Isa. 17:7), “built” (*bnh, 1 Kings 14:23), “set up” (*nsb, 2
Kings 17:10; *‘md in the hiphil, 2 Chron. 33:19; cf. Isa. 27:9), and "planted" (*nf', Deut. 16:21; cf.
Gen. 21:33).44 According to the Mishnaic tractate ‘Abodah Zarah 3:5, the asherah is forbidden
because “the hands of man have been concerned with” it.442 In other words, the asherah involves
human manufacture. ‘Abodah Zarah 3:7 is more detailed:

Three kinds of asherah are to be distinguished: if a tree was planted from the first for idolatry,
it is forbidden; if it was chopped and trimmed for idolatry and it sprouted afresh, one only need
take away what has sprouted afresh; but if a gentile did but set up an idol beneath it and then
desecrate it, the tree is permitted. What is an asherah? Any tree under which is an idol. Rabbi
Simeon says: Any tree which is worshipped.+%

Unlike the biblical data, this Mishnaic text includes both living and dead trees in its definition of
the asherah, perhaps influenced by the phenomenon of sacred groves in Hellenistic religion. To date,
no convincing examples of an asherah have been excavated, an understandable state of affairs since
biblical accounts of the asherah describe it as made of wood. Y. Aharoni suggested, for example,
that the burned tree trunk found next to a standing stone in an Israelite level (stratum V-II) at
Lachish was perhaps an asherah.““4 The combination of stone and tree appears in some biblical
texts, Jeremiah 2:27, for example.

Various pieces of iconography indicate that the tree was the Canaanite symbol of the goddess and
represented her presence. K. Galling compared the asherah to a stylized tree on a clay model of a
cultic scene from Cyprus.*% O. Negbi has published drawings of several pieces of Canaanite female
figures, often considered divine, with trees or branches etched between their navels and pubic
triangle.4S These pieces derive from Late Bronze Age levels at Tell el-*Ajjúl, Minet el-Bheida, and
Ugarit. Another piece of iconography from Ugarit illustrates the development of the pole as the
symbol of the goddess. A plaque from Ugarit depicts a female figure holding bundles of grain in
either hand with animals feeding from each hand.4* If this plaque were a depiction of the goddess
Asherah, it would indicate that the tree found in comparable later iconography was a symbol of the
goddess giving nourishment to the animals flanking her. Examples of the tree flanked by feeding
twin animals appear in the Taanach stand, one pot belonging to the Kuntillet ‘Ajrid pottery known
as pithos A, and on the Lachish ewer.44 The ewer, found in a favissa, a cache of cultic items, in the
Fosse Temple, is perhaps most pertinent. According to R. Hestrin,4% the ewer links the tree and the
goddess, since the goddess mentioned in the inscription appears directly above the depiction of the
tree.£% To illustrate the religious significance of the asherah, Hestrin compares two scenes from
New Kingdom Egypt.53- One shows the goddess Hathor as a tree giving nourishment to the king,
and another renders Isis in the form of a tree giving suck to a noble and his wife. In these depictions,
the tree stands for the fertile and nurturing goddess; the goddess is made present through the
symbolism of the tree. This mode of representing Asherah in Canaan obtained in the Late Bronze
Age. None of the iconographic depictions of the goddess derives from an Israelite stratum.

The asherah that Manasseh made in 2 Kings 21:7 was perhaps the same asherah that Josiah
dragged out of the Jerusalem temple in 2 Kings 23:6-7; both were housed in the Jerusalem temple.
The asherah of the temple may have been a more elaborate version of the symbol. It is perhaps for
asherah of 2 Kings 23:6-7 had battim, often understood as “clothes” on the basis of both versional
support (LXX chettieim/n, “tents”; Lucianic stolas, "garments"; and Targumic mkwlyn,
“coverings”)*2 and the Arabic cognate batt, “woven garments.”3 A number of scholars have
compared the asherah with the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Palestinian custom of hanging

clothes on holy trees,4%4 including the Spina christi lotus, the Christ's thorn tree.553 The hanging of

clothes on the asherah might be compared also to clothes hung on cult statues in Mesopotamia and
Ugarit attested in the second and first millennia and ridiculed in the Letter of Jeremiah 6:33.4%

Although they are not specifically identified as such, some trees in sacred precincts were perhaps
asherahs or the antecedents to asherahs. For example, Joshua 24:26-27 describes the placement of
an altar next to a tree (’élah) in the sacred precincts of Yahweh at Shechem (cf. Gen. 35:4).457 It was
at a tree, 'elah, where an angel appeared to Gideon (Judg. 6:11), although the narrative assumes that
the asherah was a different item (Judg. 6:25). Isaiah 1:29-30 condemns the oaks (“é/ím) without
providing any further information and states that the people shall be like an oak whose leaf withers.
Isaiah 61:3 may transform this image in calling the people ’é/é hassedegq, “oaks of righteousness.”
Hosea 4:13 condemns a variety of trees, including ‘é/ah, as sites of improper sacrifice. Traditions
contained in classical sources likewise point to the tree as a cultic symbol in Phoenician religion.
Achilles Tatius describes the tree growing in a sacred precinct in Tyre.4=8 Herodotus (History 2.56)
mentions a Phoenician “holy woman,” who before establishing the oracular cult of Dodona in
Epirus, founded a temple to Zeus beneath an oak.4* The biblical and classical witnesses may point
to a common Canaanite tradition.

Was the tree originally the symbol of the goddess, and did the pole substituting for a tree
secondarily come to be the symbol of the asherah?4 In this case, the symbol developed originally
from the cultic use of an actual tree. This interpretation underlies the proposal of Albright that BH
'elàh may be derived from the epithet of Asherah, 'ilt, “goddess.”46l Both Hebrew 'elah and
Ugaritic ’ilt are grammatically feminine singular nouns corresponding to the masculine forms ’é/ in
Hebrew and "il in Ugaritic. (Both BH ’é/ and Ugaritic il are generic words for “god” and
designations for the god "EL") While the view of Albright might suggest that the usual LXX
translation of asherah with a/sos, "grove," and the less frequent dendra, “tree” (LXX Isa. 17:8;
27:9) and Mishnaic descriptions of the asherah as a living tree (‘Orlah 1:7, 8; Sukkah 3:1-3;
‘Abodah Zarah 3:7, 9, 10; Me‘ilah 3:8) could reflect a genuine recollection of the variety of forms
that the asherah assumed in Israelite religion, it appears more likely that these texts reflect a later
understanding of the asherah, perhaps influenced by the phenomenon of sacred groves in Hellenistic
religion.262

Biblical texts provide a few indications for the cultic context of the asherah. According to two
passages it was a wooden item erected next to the altar of a god. In Judges 6:25-26, Gideon is
commanded to “pull down the altar of Baal which your father has, and cut down the asherah that is
beside it.” Deuteronomy 16:21 forbids the “planting” of “any tree — an asherah — besides the altar
of the Lord your God which you shall make.”%% The asherah was a religious symbol within
Yahwistic cult in both northern and southern capitals. It is indicated in 2 Kings 13:6 that the asherah
belonged to the cult of Samaria. The Jerusalem temple was expunged of cultic objects considered
unacceptable according to 2 Kings 23. The list includes the asherah, but there is no indication that
the asherah was related to a cult of Baal. Rather, as Olyan has argued, the asherah was associated
historically with Yahweh and not with Baal. 64

The Late Bronze Age iconography of the asherah would suggest that it represented maternal and
nurturing dimensions of the deity.4% Jeremiah 2:27 may point to the maternal symbolism of the
asherah in the waning days of the monarchy.*% The verse refers to the house of Israel, with its
priests, prophets, and kings “who say to a tree, “You are my father,” and to a stone, “You gave me
birth’” (’ömerim la “es ‘abi ‘attah wela’eben ‘att yélidtani [Qere: yélidtaná]). Many scholars argue
that the verse polemically reverses the roles of the maternal symbolism of the asherah with the

paternal symbolism of the stone.467

Further cultic functions of the asherah may be queried, although data are sparse. De Moor
suggests that the asherah perhaps involved divination.4°8 Habakkuk 2:19 may allude to the
“revelation,” or “teaching,” achieved through divination within the cult of the tree (‘és) and the
stone ("eben): The verse declares:

Woe to him who says to a wooden thing ("es), Awake;
to a dumb stone (’eben), Arise!

Can this give revelation (yóreh)?

Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver,

and there is no breath at all in it.

The pairing of tree and stone might recall the asherah, since the tree is the goddess's symbol.12
Indeed, this pairing occurs in Deuteronomy 29:16 and Jeremiah 2:27 (cf. Ezek. 20:32). This section
of Habakkuk 2:18-19, however, may involve a description of making an idol from materials of
wood and stone and may refer only to functions that deities may provide generally; therefore, it may
not be a reference specifically to the asherah. Hosea 4:12 may also preserve a record of the role of
divination through the asherah: “My people inquired of a thing of wood (‘és), and their staff gives
them oracles.” While the parallellism has suggested to commentators that the wood constitutes a
staff of some sort,4”° this verse may allude to divination by means of the asherah. Divination via the
asherah might explain the grouping of asherim with diviners in Micah 5:11-13 (E 12-14).
Furthermore, this approach to these passages would also provide further explanation for prophetic
and Deuteronomistic criticisms of the asherah. In the popular religion of the high places and perhaps
the royal religion of the capital cities, the asherah perhaps provided an access to divine information
that competed with prophetic inquiry.

Another possible function of the asherah was healing. Like the bones of the prophet Elisha (2
Kings 13:21), the asherah perhaps was used for medicinal purposes. While no biblical texts hint at
this feature of the asherah, a Talmudic passage, Pesahim 25a, mentions that any remedy, except the
wood of the asherah, is acceptable:

Rabbi Jacob said in Rabbi Johanan’s name: We may cure ourselves with all things, save with
the wood of the asherah. How is it meant? If we say that there is danger, even the wood of the
asherah too [is permitted]; while if there is no danger, even all [other] forbidden things of the
Torah too are not [permitted]. After all [it means] that there is danger, yet even so the wood of
the asherah [must) not be used.4

From this text it might be inferred that healing was an ancient aspect of the asherah that biblical
sources do not mention. It is not possible to confirm further either the divinatory or healing aspects
of the asherah, but the cultic features of the asherah were perhaps more far-reaching than the
biblical and inscriptional sources indicate.

3. The Inscriptional Evidence

The evidence for the asherah in the Kuntillet *Ajrúd inscriptions bears on the issue of whether
Asherah was a goddess in ancient Israel and whether she was the consort of Yahweh. The
inscriptions from Kuntillet *Ajrúd in the eastern Sinai are dated on paleographic grounds to ca.
800.42 The two following quotations typify the inscriptions containing the element *’srth:+3 44

"mr X "mr wlyw'sh w[I-Z] X says: Say to Y and Yau'asah and [to Z]:

brkt "tkm lyhwh šmrn wlšrth I bless you to*? Yahweh of Samaria, and
to his/its asherah.

[']mr "mryw l'dny [X] Amaryaw [sa]ys: Say to my lord [X]:

brktk lyhwh [$mrn] wl'srth I bless you to Yahweh [of Samaria,] and
to his/its asherah.

Since the initial publication of these inscriptions, scholars have noted that the pronominal suffix
on *‘srth indicates that the form is a common noun and not the personal name of the goddess
Asherah.*?? This logic is not airtight. Indeed, although divine names do not appear in Hebrew with a
pronominal suffix (i.e., an ending meaning “his”/“its”), many divine names are found in similarly
“bound” syntactic constructions. Divine names appear in “bound” forms when they stand in genitive
relationship with (or in “construct state” to) a noun or a pronominal suffix (nouns with the definite
article belong to a closely related category).7Ó For example, Yahweh stands in construct
relationship with a number of place-names, a formula attested in *Yahweh of Teiman" in the
inscriptions from Kuntillet *Ajrüd; this construction warrants interpreting smrn as a place-name,
Samaria, rather than translating “our guardian.” As P. K. McCarter notes, this type of
construction may be elliptical for deity X who dwells in Y place, as in BH yhwh Ébsiyyón, *Yahweh
in Zion” (Ps. 99:2), dagén b@‘aidéd, “Dagon in Ashdod” (1 Sam. 5:5), Phoenician int blbnn,
“Tannit in Lebanon” (KAI 81:1) and Ugaritic mlk 6 ‘ttrt, “Mlk in Ashtaroth” (KTU 1.100.41; cf.
mlk ‘tert, “Mik of Ashtaroth” in RS 1986/2235.17).23 Similarly, the form *’srth might be
interpreted as the name of the goddess in a genitive relationship (or in construct state to) a
pronominal suffix. From this evidence, it might be then argued that *’srth in the inscriptions
represents a divine name. Although no Hebrew examples for a divine name with a pronominal
suffix are attested, Ugaritic provides some examples, including ‘afrty (KTU 2.31.39) and ‘nth (KTU
1.43.13).42 The biblical bound forms, habba ‘al (“the baal”) and ha ’aserah (“the asherah”) appear
in a few cases to refer to a specific deity, but these instances may conform to their use as generic
references to deities as in Judges 3:7 (cf. Judg. 2:13; 10:16; 1 Sam. 7:4; 12:10; Jer. 2:23; 9:14).
Despite the possibility that the Ugaritic examples could point to taking *’srth as the name of the
goddess, it appears better to follow the grammatical rule of seeing bound forms as common nouns
rather than to discard the rule and thereby interpret *’srth as the goddess Asherah.4®2 Z. Zevit has
offered a different morphological interpretation of *’srth as the goddess's name.él Instead of
viewing the ending / as a pronominal suffix, he considers it to be a second indicator of feminine
gender. According to Tigay, most of the analogues Zevit marshalls as support do not contain two
endings indicating feminine gender. Tigay denies the relevance of most of these examples because
many are place-names with final / indicating direction (“heh-locale”).282 It might be argued that the
object of the verb-preposition combination, *brk I-, “to bless by X,” denotes a deity in West Semitic
votive offerings. As Tigay has observed,4®3 this view is vitiated by a number of Phoenician
inscriptions that have cultic objects following the preposition (KAI 12:3-4; 251; 256).

Apart from the grammatical problem, there are further semantic issues afflicting interpreting the
noun as either the goddess’s name or the symbol in its capacity of referring to the goddess. If /‘srth
in the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud refers to the goddess (“and to his Asherah”), then it is
unclear what “his Asherah” means.484 Only by assuming an ellipsis of “his consort, Asherah” or the
like does this interpretation make reasonable sense. If /’srth means “his asherah" referring to the
symbol, then “his asherah” should denote something that is “his,” and not hers. In short, it appears

preferable to take “his asherah” as something that is “his,” 1.e., a symbol that once may have
referred to the goddess by the same name, but functions in this context as part of Yahweh’s
symbolic repertoire, possibly with older connotations associated with the goddess. Some of these
older connotations are explored below.

Attempts to interpret the name with a different semantic range are undermined by etymological
fallacies of various kinds. For example, interpreting Hebrew *’srth on the basis of Ugaritic ‘aly,
Akkadian asru, and Phoenician ’sr, “sanctuary,’“®> founders on the fact that such a meaning does
not occur otherwise in Hebrew. Even greater difficulty attaches to meanings posited without any
etymological basis in any Northwest Semitic language. This problem attends proposals such as
“symbol,” “consort,”487 “goddess,”288 and “trace.”482 The fourth translation, proffered by P. K.
McCarter, offers an ingenious solution to interpreting *’srth. McCarter interprets the name to be a
hypostasis of Yahweh and not a goddess as such; in this connection he compares other goddesses
who bear titles expressing relationship of hypostasis with gods. The two main examples are the
Ugaritic and Phoenician title for Astarte, who is called “the name of Baal,” $m b 'I (KTU 1.16 VI 56
[cf. 1.2 TV 28]; KAI 14:18), and a title of Phoenician Tannit designated “the face of Baal,” pn b 1
(KAI 78.2; 79:1, 10-11; 85:1; 86:1; 137:1; 175:2; 176:2-3; cf. 87:1) and p‘n b47 (KAI 94:1; 97:1;
102:1; 105:1; cf. 164:1; cf. ‘npy-b 7 twice in an incantation from Wadi Hammamat in Upper Egypt,
written in Demotic script but Aramaic in language, and dated to the sixth or fifth century B.C.E.; cf.
phanebalos on coins of the Roman period from Ashkelon; BH peni’él [Gen. 32:32; Judg. 8:8, 9,
17; 1 Kings 12:25]/p@ni’él [Gen. 32:31]; and the Greek place-name for a cape north of Byblos,
prosopon theou, “face of God”).*2! Following Albright, McCarter also appeals to the uncertain
hypostatic interpretation of the name Anat as meaning “sign” in the Aramaic divine names ‘ntyh
(AP 44:3) and "ntbt'l (AP 22:125).222 The weakness of this suggestion for *'¿rth is not limited to
the etymological difficulty identified above, namely, that the base (“root”) *’tr does not mean
“trace” in any Northwest Semitic language.4 There is the more glaring problem that in the cases of
Astarte and Tannit it is not the goddess’s name but her title that is the term of hypostasis. These
cases are therefore not true analogies for McCarter’s proposals for Anat and Asherah, whose names
he takes to be expressions of aspects of gods. Furthermore, the analogy with divine names ‘ntyh,
‘ntbt’l, hrmbt’l (AP 7:7), or ‘smbt’l (AP 22:124) is unsure. Some of these names may not be
construct chains, “aspect X of god Y,” but two divine names or divine name plus a place name.2?*
The interpretation of these forms should not obscure the fact that different developments may lie
behind them. In any case, the etymology “presence” or “sign,” either for the element *'nt in these
names or the Ugaritic goddess Anat, is not secure. Finally, McCarter makes the problematic
assumption that Asherah is historically disassociated from *’šrth in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd
inscriptions, that the former was a Canaanite goddess and the latter an internal Israelite
development. As both Asherah and *’srth are religious phenomena criticized in ancient Israel
during the same period, McCarter’s assumptions constitute dubious grounds upon which to build a
further historical reconstruction.

Finally, an attempt to see these attestations as non-Israelite because the script may be non-
Israelite appears unfounded.*?> McCarter and Olyan consider the Samaria ostraca as the inscriptions
written in the nearest paleographic hand. 99 Ahlstróm groups Kuntillet *Ajrüd with Arad and
Beersheba as district administrative centers and military forts that had sanctuaries or cult places.4~%
According to Ahlstróm, the royal character of Kuntillet *Ajrüd lends credence to the view that the
religious practices there represent official Judean religion. Furthermore, much of the pottery that
served as the medium for the inscriptions and iconography derived from Judah.*% The religious
practices of Kuntillet ‘Ajrid probably do not constitute practices peripheral to Judean culture.
Indeed, “Yahweh ... and his asherah” are attested also in a Hebrew inscription from Khirbet el-Qóm
(ca. 700) in the heartland of Judah.*2 Although problems attend the interpretation of this
inscription, it supports the point that the asherah was an Israelite phenomenon. Yet, the precise
importance of the information attested at Kuntillet *Ajrúd and Khirbet el-Qóm cannot be determined
without recourse to the other textual source attesting to the asherah, the biblical record, itself a
matter of controversy.

4. Asherah — An Israelite Goddess?

The question of Asherah as an Israelite goddess constitutes a major issue in understanding Israelite
religion. Does the biblical and extrabiblical evidence support the view that Asherah was a goddess
in pre-exilic Israel and that she was the consort of Yahweh? Or, alternatively, does the data point to
the asherah as a symbol within the cult of Yahweh without signifying a goddess? The first position
constitutes a majority view, represented by the older works of H. Ringgren, G. Fohrer, and G. W.
Ahlström, and the studies in the 1980s by W. G. Dever, D. N. Freedman, R. Hestrin, A. Lemaire,
and S. Olyan and more recent works by J. M. Hadley, J. Day, M. Dijkstra, O. Keel, and Z. Zevit.>%
A minority position, held earlier by B. Lang, P. D. Miller, J. Tigay, and U. Winter and recently by C.

goddess nor symbolized the goddess in Israel.5%

The inscriptional evidence points to a cult symbol, the asherah. Demonstrating whether the
symbol represented a goddess who was Yahweh’s consort requires an appeal to the biblical
evidence, since the inscriptional data does not resolve this issue. The discussion of Genesis 49:25
above indicated that Asherah may have been the consort of El, but not Yahweh, at some early point
in Israelite religion.2 Olyan's argument that Asherah became Yahweh’s consort by virtue of the
identification of Yahweh and El has provided a viable explanation for the development of the cult of
Yahweh and his Asherah.2% Indeed, a number of biblical passages have been cited in defense of the
reconstruction that Asherah was a goddess in Israel. These texts, 1 Kings 18:19, 2 Kings 21:7, 2
Kings 23:4, Judges 3:7, and Jeremiah 2:27,24 are addressed in turn to examine the strength of the
reconstruction of Asherah as Yahweh’s consort.

As many scholars have noted, the one Iron II (ca. 1000-587) passage that unambiguously
mentions the goddess Asherah is 1 Kings 18:19. The prophets of Asherah are presented in chapter
18 as the prophets of the Tyrian Jezebel. Like the prophets of Baal in this chapter, the prophets of
Asherah are presented as Tyrian functionaries. The historical difficulty with this depiction is that
Asherah is not attested in any Tyrian text. It would appear that Asherah was not a Tyrian goddess;
indeed, Asherah is not attested anywhere in coastal Phoenicia during the Iron Age. The reference to
“the prophets of Asherah” apparently does not constitute a plausible historical witness to the cult of
Asherah in ancient Israel. Indeed, the phrase “the prophets of Asherah” in 1 Kings 18:19 has been

viewed as a secondary gloss to the story.22>

The question is why the name of Asherah is used here. If Phoenician Astarte was the goddess
lying behind this reference to Asherah, the reference to “the prophets of Asherah” in 1 Kings 18:19
might be explained in terms of the threat that Astarte may have posed. As the main Phoenician
goddess during the Iron Age, Astarte could have represented an intrusion during the monarchy. The
polemic against Asherah in 1 Kings 18:19 may have represented a reaction against the cult of
Astarte either in the northern kingdom during the ninth century or in the Jerusalem cult at the end of
the Iron Age. The references to “the asherah” in 2 Kings 21 and 23 might point to the late Judean
monarchy as the time for the substitution of Asherah for Astarte in 1 Kings 18:19. It is precisely this
period when Astarte had a cult in ancient Israel. There is no evidence for Astarte as a goddess in
Israel prior to the second half of the monarchy. She does not appear to be an old Canaanite
inheritance of Israel, as her name does not appear in the old Canaanite inscriptions of the Late
Bronze or Iron I periods. Furthermore, biblical literature does not point to a historical witness for
her in the period of the Judges. She makes her initial appearance in the Bible as a Philistine goddess
(1 Sam. 31:10) during the reign of Saul and as the “goddess of the Sidonians” (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2
Kings 23:13) in the reign of Solomon. She does not appear as an Israelite phenomenon explicitly
except in the polemics of Judges 2:13; 10:6 and 1 Samuel 7:3, 4; 12:10. These references belong to
the tradents of these biblical books; the references likely stem from the second half of the
monarchy2% and might reflect the Judean cult to Astarte in Jerusalem. The “Queen of Heaven” in
the book of Jeremiah may refer either to Astarte, the only West Semitic goddess bearing this title
during the Iron Age, or to Ishtar (or possibly some combination of the two).* Jeremiah 44 presents
the cult of the “Queen of Heaven” as an old one in Israel. It included the cultic acts of burning

incense and pouring libations in her name and the baking of cakes in her honor (Jer. 7:18; 44:15-28).
It would appear dubious that either Asherah or Astarte was the threat in the northern kingdom that 1
Kings 18:19 implies. Rather, this reference has the appearance of being a retrojection onto the
earlier history of the northern kingdom, perhaps inspired by the known Phoenician background of
Baal. This god represented a threat not only in the north in the ninth century, but also in the south at
the end of the Judean monarchy. In sum, 1 Kings 18:19 is a historically implausible reference to
Asherah. The gloss may be the result of substitution and not historical report; it perhaps belongs to
the seventh or sixth century.

Two other passages taken to refer to the goddess Asherah, namely, 2 Kings 21:7 and 23:4, also
constitute questionable historical witnesses to the goddess. Both texts belong to the second half of
the Judean monarchy. The first, 2 Kings 21:7, refers to “the image/idol of the asherah” (pesel
ha’asérah). The word “image” (pesel) here is elsewhere used for images of deities, and
consequently this verse has been viewed as a reference to the image of the goddess Asherah. There
is no question that the asherah in 2 Kings 21:7 was considered an idolatrous object by the writer.
here may not have been an image of the goddess; it may have been a more elaborate form of the
asherah in the royal cult of Jerusalem.

After 1 Kings 18:19 and Genesis 49:25, the passage most strongly suggesting that Asherah was a
goddess is the second, 2 Kings 23:4 (cf. w. 6, 7, 15). This verse mentions the asherah in the phrase
“the vessels made for the baal, the asherah, and all the host of heaven” (hakkélim ha ‘astivim
labba “al wela 'aserah úlkol seba” hassámayim). The terms “the baal” and “all the host of heaven”
are deities, and the most natural reading of the placement of “the asherah” between these two terms
is that it likewise refers to a deity, specifically Asherah. This reading is not compelling on a number
of grounds. All three are recipients of cultic paraphernalia, but there is no reason not to suppose that
the asherah and not a goddess was the object of cultic items. This is precisely the way the asherah of
the Jerusalem temple is presented in the same chapter. According to verse 7, the asherah received
“clothes” (battim). Furthermore, it was dragged out of the Jerusalem temple, according to verse 6. In
order to sustain the interpretation that the asherah in verse 4 refers to the goddess, it is necessary to
separate the reference to the asherah in this verse from the asherah in verses 6-7. It may be that only
the tree is involved in 2 Kings 21 and 23, however. It is further plausible that the same asherah is
involved in 2 Kings 21:7 and 2 Kings 23:6. According to the first passage, the asherah was erected
in the Jerusalem temple, and in the second passage, the asherah was removed from the temple.

The reference to “the asherahs” in Judges 3:7 has been used to establish the presence of Asherah
in ancient Israel. The immediate difficulty with this view is that while “the asherahs” represent
goddesses, they do not appear to refer to a specific goddess. Indeed, the term involved does not
represent a single figure, but a collective group. The group is probably goddesses in general, as “the
asherahs” are paired with “the baals” as a means of alluding to foreign gods and goddesses in
general. The variation between “the baals and the asherahs” in Judges 3:7 and “the baals and the
astartes” in Judges 2:13, 1 Samuel 7:4, 12:10 further reflects the fact that “the asherahs” in Judges
3:7 represents a generic usage. The question is how “the asherahs” came to be used in this way. One
possibility is that these expressions reflect an interchange between Asherah and Astarte. The
Hebrew names of Asherah (“áserah) and Astarte ("astoret) are somewhat similar. Furthermore,
Astarte shows some of the traits and roles earlier reckoned to Asherah. For example, in the Ugaritic
texts, rbt is a standard title of Asherah (e.g., KTU 1.3 V 40; 1.41 13, 21; 1.4 IV 31, 40; 1.6 144, 45,
47, 53; cf. 1.16 1 36, 38; 1.23.54), but in inscriptions from Sidon, Tyre, Kition, and Egypt, this
epithet belongs to Astarte (KAI 14:15; 17:1; 33:3; cf. 48:2; 277:1)398 Similarly, Asherah is
considered the mother figure in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.4 II 25-26, IV 51, V 1; 1.6 I 39-41,46),
but in Phoenician inscriptions it is Astarte who bears the title of “mother,” "m (KAI 14:14).? The
figure of Asherah did not continue by name in the Phoenician world, and Astarte may have been the
bearer of some features earlier associated with Asherah. To be sure, some scholars?!? have argued
that the goddess Tannit may have been the Phoenician-Punic descendant of Canaanite Asherah or
included her features, including the titles “lady,” rbt (e.g., KAI 78:2; 79:1; 81:1; 85:1; 86:1), and
“mother,” ’m (cf. KAI 83:1).24+ Asherah was, apart from 1 Kings 18:19, nowhere called by her old
Canaanite name in the first millennium. She is not once attested in Phoenician sources. The biblical
authors characterizing the cult lying behind the symbol of the asherah perhaps telescoped the
second-millennium goddess Asherah and the first-millennium goddess Astarte, just as the second-
millennium storm-god Baal, part of Israel’s old Canaanite inheritance, was conflated with the first-

millennium storm-god Baal of Tyre.2/2

Jeremiah 2:27 has been understood as a reference to Asherah as the consort of Yahweh.
According to a number of scholars, Jeremiah 2:27 reverses the role of the paternal symbol of the
stone with the maternal role of the tree, symbols which refer to Asherah and Baal. If so, Jeremiah
2:27 would provide a historical witness to Asherah as a goddess and the consort of Baal. In contrast,
Olyan argues that Jeremiah 2:27 may refer not to Asherah and Baal, but to Asherah and Yahweh,
since paternal language is rarely, if ever, attributed to Baal, whereas Yahweh receives paternal
language in a number of instances (e.g., Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:7 [E 8]; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal.
1:6; 2:10; Wisdom of Solomon 14:3; Ben Sira 23:1, 4; cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). According to
Olyan’s view, Jeremiah 2:27 may indicate that Asherah was a goddess in Israel and the consort of
Yahweh during the waning decades of the Judean monarchy.*4 For all these scholars, the asherah
was perceived as the goddess’s symbol, not only by its critics, but also by Israelite worshipers.
These views are historically problematic, however. The myth in Jeremiah 2:27 is not attributed to a
goddess, as in Canaanite religion, but to a symbol in the cult of Yahweh. That such maternal
language was appropriated to Yahweh is evident from Deuteronomy 32:18, discussed in the
following section. It is possible, therefore, that the symbol named in this verse did not refer to
Asherah. Yet there is a further difficulty for assuming that Asherah is described in Jeremiah 2:27.
The larger context of this verse, Jeremiah 2:23-28, names Baal also as an object of opprobrium, and
perhaps it is Baal and Asherah who are the objects of attack in this verse. Elsewhere in the
Deuteronomistic History, especially in 1 Kings 18:19, the juxtaposition of Baal and Asherah may
reflect the substitution of Asherah for Astarte. The same replacement may be involved in Jeremiah
2:27. Or, perhaps this verse reflects a historical connection made secondarily between Baal and
Asherah in Jeremiah’s own time. As a result of the complex problems that Jeremiah 2:27 presents,
the precise divine referents of the symbols of tree and stone in this verse are difficult to establish;

indeed, many scholars deny that there are any divine referents. 315

To summarize the evidence for Asherah as the consort of Yahweh, there is no clear reference to
the goddess in the Bible, apart from 1 Kings 18:19, possibly a polemic against Astarte. Genesis
49:25 may attest to Asherah as El's consort; it provides no support for the view that Asherah was
Yahweh’s consort. The other biblical references used to support this reconstruction are susceptible
to other interpretations, which would vitiate the view of Asherah as a goddess. A further difficulty
with positing Asherah as a goddess in monarchic Israel involves not only the biblical evidence, but
the Phoenician evidence as well. Asherah was not a Phoenician or Punic goddess during the Iron
Age. She apparently did not continue as a goddess in Phoenicia and therefore was not the
Phoenician problem as 1 Kings 18:19 presents her. There is other negative evidence that might
support the reconstruction that Asherah was not a goddess in Israel; this sort of evidence is,
however, based on the argument from silence, and it has merit only in conjunction with the positive
evidence presented above. It is to be noted that prophetic and legal condemnations never refer to the
goddess, only to the symbol. There are no personal names formed with the theophoric element of
the goddess's name.216 Furthermore, unlike Yahweh, El, Baal, or even Anat, *‘srh does not appear
as the theophoric element in Israelite personal names. According to Tigay, this fact indicates a lack
of religious cult devoted expressly to the goddess. The argument in itself would be unconvincing,
because, as Emerton and Olyan have observed in the case of the name of Asherah,*! onomastica do
not always reflect accurately religious devotion. The cult of this goddess is attested at Ugarit, but
her name does not appear as a theophoric element in Ugaritic names. However, the onomastic
evidence comports with the other Iron Age evidence. Finally, there is the questionable argument that
neither biblical nor inscriptional Hebrew has a word for "goddess" ("elah notwithstanding). In
conclusion, the evidence for Asherah as an Israelite goddess during the monarchy is minimal at best.
In view of the difficulties raised about this historical reconstruction, the rejection of this position by
B. Lang, P. D. Miller, J. Tigay, U. Winter, C. Frevel, and M. C. A. Korpel appears more compatible

with the available evidence.213

If the symbol no longer represented the goddess, there are two historical questions. First, what
was the historical development lying behind this situation? Second, why did the Deuteronomistic
tradition, in so strongly opposing the symbol, suppose that the goddess Asherah was involved? In
other words, if the symbol no longer represented the goddess, why was it condemned?

The first question is very difficult. On the basis of the biblical association between Baal and
Asherah, some scholars argue that Baal replaced El as the husband of Asherah in the Iron I period
(1200-1000), and that this is why biblical criticisms link Baal and Asherah.* This view suffers
from the fundamental weakness that the evidence for Baal replacing El in Canaan is scant. To be

sure, a weighty analogue could be based on various evidence, including the Elkunirsa narrative.520

Despite the suggestive direction of this analogue, such a state of affairs perhaps never obtained in
Iron Age Israel. Olyan has suggested that as a result of the Yahweh-El identification and the pairing
of El and Asherah, Asherah was the consort of Yahweh and the asherah was her symbol.22 At some
point, however, perhaps as early as the period of the Judges, the symbol of the asherah, like the
name and imagery of El, continued in the cult of Yahweh but did not refer to a separate deity. As
seen in chapter 1, the evidence for Asherah as a goddess in Israel during the period of the Judges is
minimal. The same difficulty afflicts the data for the period of the monarchy. Rather than supporting
a theory of a goddess as the consort of Yahweh, it would indicate that the symbol outlived the cult
of the goddess who gave her name to it and continued to hold a place in the cult of Yahweh. Other
scholars such as Hadley would date this development generally to the post-exilic period. Yet she
also allows for the development earlier: “By Manasseh’s time, it is possible that the asherah statue
had lost enough of its ‘goddess background’, and it was considered more as an aspect of
(Yahweh’s?) fertility.”=22 Given the problematic references in the books of Kings to the goddess, the
development may be earlier. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the number of Iron Age tree
scenes which lack the female figure, as noted by Keel.323 It is precisely this lack as well as the
preponderance of biblical references to the asherah symbol compared to the putative number of
references to Asherah the goddess that makes one think that the symbol outlasted the goddess”s cult.

The second question is even more problematic. If the asherah was a Yahwistic symbol that no
longer represented a separate goddess, why then did it fall under such weighty biblical criticism?
Any answer is speculative, but some of the biblical criticisms of the asherah confined to
Deuteronomistic influence observed by Olyan provide a starting point. Secondary association of the
name of the asherah with the goddess Astarte, perhaps represented by the variation between “the
baals and the asherahs” in Judges 3:7 and “the baals and the astartes” in Judges 2:13, 1 Samuel 7:4,
and 12:10, may have provided a negative view of the asherah. Another reason for the condemnation
of the asherah may be approached on the basis of its functions. Perhaps its roles in providing
fertility or healing were offensive to its critics. Its function of divination may have competed with
prophecy, which may have led to prophetic condemnations. In any case, its indictment belongs to a
more sweeping rejection of a number of cultic practices.2% From this survey of the biblical
evidence, it would appear that the asherah continued with various functions in the cult of Yahweh
without connection to the goddess who gave her name to the symbol.

5. The Assimilation of the Imagery of Asherah

The history of the Israelite asherah apparently ended with the Judean exile (587/6), but biblical
passages that depict an independent divine figure might reflect at some level of the tradition the
ongoing literary impact of the myth associated with the asherah. The female figure of Wisdom in
Proverbs 1-9 is a possible candidate. G. Bostróm, H. Ringgren, W. F. Albright, and others compared
the figure of Wisdom to the Canaanite goddess Asherah.22? C. Camp's study on the figure of
Wisdom, which otherwise minimizes the history of religion approach, also recognizes such an
influence.226 If the symbolic content of the asherah was in any sense a literary model for the figure
of Wisdom (perhaps as a counter-advertisement, or Kontrastbild in von Rad's terms), it may have
been due to the background of the indigenous cult of “Yahweh and his asherah.”327 The “tree of
life,” which recalls the asherah, appears in Israelite tradition as a metaphorical expression for
Wisdom (Prov. 3:18; cf. Prov. 11:30; 15:4; Gen. 3:22; Rev. 2:7).22% Like the symbol of the asherah,
Wisdom is a female figure, providing life and nurturing. Proverbs 3:18 is especially pertinent: “She
is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are made happy” ("es-hayyím

vy vx

OY A (2

unit begins and ends with the same root, *’sr, “to be happy,” specifically with ‘asré, “happy,” in

verse 13 and mé‘ussar, “made happy,” in verse 18. The inside terms of the chiasm are hokmah,

we vee

the asherah, the tree symbolizing life and well-being.22? Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) continues and

amplifies the female personification of Wisdom. Ben Sira 1:20 draws on the image of Wisdom as a
tree of life: “To fear the Lord is the root of wisdom, and her branches are long life.*?39 Ben Sira
24:12-17 likewise describes Wisdom as different types of trees.31 Ben Sira 4:13332 and Baruch 4:1,
echoing Proverbs 3:18, use the image of holding fast to Wisdom.

Other examples of the asherah’s impact on biblical imagery are less convincing. J. Day perceives
an instance of the asherah imagery in Hosea 14:9 (E 8).233 Yahweh declares:

O Ephraim, what have I do to with idols?

It is I who answer ( "anítí) and look after him (wa 'ásürenná).
I am like an evergreen cypress,

from me comes your fruit.

Following J. Wellhausen,3* Day sees in the second half of the verse an allusion to Anat and

Asherah. He also reads */ó, *him" (i.e., Ephraim), for lî, *me" (i.e., Yahweh).23? An allusion is
plausible for the asherah, but not in the case of Anat, since she appears only in proper names in
Israelite sources.° Furthermore, the use of the root *‘ny, “to answer,” recalls rather the use of the
same root in Hosea 2.227 The reading */o for lí has little textual support and may misconstrue the
nature of the religious problem under indictment. The idolatry is not merely a matter of Ephraim's
sin; rather, the prophetic criticism may hint at the inclusion of the asherah with Yahweh. Finally,
Hosea 14:10 (E 9) may be related to the theme of the preceding verse. While Hosea 14:10 is
generally regarded as a secondary addition separate from the preceding section or the book as a
whole, G. Yee treats the verse as part of the larger unit comprising Hosea 14:2-10 and belonging to
the final redactional level of the book 228 If the verse is to be understood in the context of both the
whole book=22 and the unit Hosea 14:2-10, then perhaps the subtext of this verse includes idolatry
generally expressed throughout the book and specifically the object of opprobrium to which Hosea
14:9 alludes, the asherah. Read as part of the same unit, Hosea 14:9-10 is reminiscent of the
imagery in Proverbs 3:13-18. Like Proverbs 3:13- 18, Hosea 14:9 draws on the image of the tree,
perhaps as a transformation of the asherah into the Yahwistic symbol of life. This transformation in
both cases is perhaps disclosed by the use of the root *’s7, not as an explicit reference to the asherah,
but as an allusion through paronomasia. Like Proverbs 3:13-18, Hosea 14:10 casts this motif into

the mold of wisdom language. As Yee notes,>4 the image of the tree in Hosea 14:10 is unique in

describing Yahweh as the tree. In this respect Hosea 14:2-10 differs in one significant way from
Proverbs 3:13-18. In the latter passage it is the female personification of Wisdom being described
metaphorically as a tree; in Hosea 14:9 this attribution falls to Yahweh. Perhaps paronomasia with
the asherah is involved in this verse, although the evidence for this example is considerably weaker
than the data supporting Proverbs 3:13-18. Another less than persuasive example of the imagery
associated with the asherah may underlie Song of Songs 4:1-5 and 7:1-9. According to M. H.

Pope,=“! the female protagonist of the Song of Songs 4 and 7 may have been modeled in part on a

divine prototype; if so, the model may have been indigenous.?€

The assimilation of language originally associated with the asherah may be illustrated by a
comparison of Jeremiah 2:27 with Deuteronomy 32:18, which reads, “You were unmindful of the
Rock who begot you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth" (súr yeladeka tesí wattiskah 'el
mehölelekä). 553 Whereas Jeremiah 2:27 reverses the role of the paternal symbol of the stone with
the maternal role of the tree, Deuteronomy 32:18 forges from various cultic themes an image of
Yahweh that transcends sexuality.244 It has been argued that méholélekà presents in this passage a
female image of giving birth, although this use of the word lacks specifically female connotations
(Prov. 26:10). Deuteronomy 32:18 otherwise de-emphasizes the specifically sexual connotations of
the stone and tree, first by omitting the specifically female image of the tree, and second, by using
sur, “rock,” instead of ‘eben, “stone.” The rock (’eben) in Jeremiah 2:27 may represent the symbol
of the god, hence the god himself (cf. Gen. 49:24), but in Deuteronomy 32:18 the image of the rock
(sur) functions very differently.

In its current context in Deuteronomy 32, the image of the rock is a leitmotif punctuating the
poem (vv. 4, 13, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37). There are three further functions that the sevenfold repetition of
sur, “tock,” exhibits in this poem. First, verses 4 and 15 use the image of the rock as an expression
of divine strength. Second, verse 13 employs the image of the rock to recall the divine care in the
wilderness, described in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:2-13. In this way attention is diverted from
rock as an image of the male deity, and rock is associated instead with the wilderness incident.
Third, verses 18, 31, and 37 use the image of the rock in a polemical way. Verse 31a is most direct:
“For their rock is not as our Rock” (kr lö’ kesürenü stiram). Here the word súr refers to both
Yahweh (“our god’) and other gods, a contrast at issue also in verses 12, 16, 21, 37-38, 39. The
image in the poem, on the one hand, disarms the rock of its cultic associations with respect to
Yahweh and places it in the context of Israel’s wilderness traditions and, on the other hand, attacks
the associations of this image with other gods. The image of the rock is a central one for this poem,
expressing both Yahweh’s parental care for Israel and Yahweh’s negative posture toward other
deities.

6. Excursus: Gender Language for Yahweh

Gender-specific language in the Bible that might be traced back to the asherah raises the issue
concerning the background and significance of female metaphor occasionally used to describe either
Yahweh or Yahweh’s action. Reacting against the ideas of P. Trible, J. W. Miller argues that in
Deuteronomy 32:18, Numbers 11:12, Psalm 22:9-10, and Isaiah 46:3; 66:9, 13, Yahweh was not
considered female, either separately or in conjunction with male language for Yahweh. Rather,
Yahweh was treated as a male deity to whom female imagery was occasionally attributed on a
metaphorical level. Miller claims that while paternal imagery is more attested and directly
applied to Yahweh, female language for Yahweh is rarer, used indirectly to stress qualities that
Yahweh shares with female figures. Miller is therefore critical of Trible’s attempts to maximize the
female dimensions of Yahweh.2% Finally, for the religious background for the personage of
Yahweh, Miller appeals to the West Semitic antecedent of El as father, following a long-accepted
scholarly tradition, as chapter 1 indicates.

There are both strengths and weaknesses in Miller’s arguments. First, Miller correctly observes
that paternal language is applied to Yahweh directly, although it is not very frequent (Deut. 32:6;
Isa. 63:16; 64:7 [E 8]; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10; Wisdom of Solomon 14:3; Ben Sira 23:1, 4;
cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Other images of king, redeemer, warrior, and so on are considerably
more widespread in the Hebrew Bible and deuterocanonical works.*48 Second, in support of
Miller's argument, the claim that some passages, such as Deuteronomy 32:18 and Psalm 27:10 (cf. 2
Esdras 1:28), combine male and female imagery for Yahweh suffers from exegetical considerations.
Deuteronomy 32:18 reads, *You were unmindful of the Rock who begot you, and you forgot God
who brought you forth" (sár yéladéka tesí wattiskah 'el meholeleka). The verbal forms in
Deuteronomy 32:18 are both masculine, implying a masculine subject. Psalm 27:10 declares, *For
my father and my mother have forsaken me, but Yahweh will take me up” (ki-’abi wé‘immi
“azabúni wayhwh ya 'aspéni). This verse at best draws an indirect comparison between Yahweh and
either a father or mother; indeed, Yahweh stands in contrast to either a mother or a father.

Third, the comparison between El and Yahweh is pertinent; yet it covers only part of the historical
issue. Miller does not address the impact that the language of either the god Baal or the goddesses
Asherah and Anat may have made on characterizations of Yahweh. If El imagery was a constitutive
component of Yahweh's nature, likewise it may be possible to identify in the nature of Yahweh
elements of Asherah’s character, specifically her maternal and nurturing character. The balance of
the data in this chapter favors this reconstruction. The evidence may not be as widespread as the
basis for comparing Yahweh with El or Baal, but it remains significant. While from the perspective
of the ancient Near East, Yahweh constituted a male god, nonetheless some female features or traits,
perhaps traceable to the assimilation of the goddess Asherah, were ascribed to him. In particular,
Trible points to use of the root *rhm (Isa. 49:13; Jer. 31:20; Hos. 2:21 [E 19]; 2:25 [E 23]) and the
image of mother for Yahweh in biblical texts,?4? and it is precisely these features that belong to
Asherah in Canaanite literature and possibly underlie Genesis 49:25. Moreover, the description of
Wisdom in Proverbs 3:13-18 illustrates another survival of language formerly associated with the
asherah.

Finally, in defense of Trible's treatment of female metaphors for Yahweh, if Yahweh was
considered essentially a male deity, then biblical passages with female imagery for Yahweh may
have represented an expansion of the Israelite understanding of Yahweh. Such innovation may best
explain the attestation of female images for the divine in Second Isaiah (Isa. 42:14; 46:3; 49:15; cf.
45:10-11; 66:9, 13). The innovative character of these passages would support the point that Miller
attempts to discredit, namely, that Yahweh both encompasses the characteristics and values
expressed through gendered metaphors and transcends the categories of sexuality (cf. Job 38:28-29).

Both Trible and Miller largely confine their perspective to the biblical material. The broader
cultural setting of ancient Near Eastern literature provides further context for understanding female
metaphors applied to Yahweh. The attribution of female roles to gods was by no means an Israelite
innovation. Indeed, even specifically female roles for gods (and vice-versa) might be posited on the

basis of proper names, such as Ugaritic ‘ttr’um, “Athtar is mother” (cf. ‘ttr’ab, “Athtar is father”),
‘i/‘nt, “Anat is (a) god,” Akkadian uwmmi-samas, “Shamash is my mother,” and a-da-nu-um-mu,
“lord is mother.”230 Similarly, the combination of male and female roles for a single deity is not
without parallel in the ancient Near East. Like the storm-gods Ningirsu and Marduk, Yahweh was
represented with both storm and solar language either separately or jointly, as in Hosea 6:3,
indicating both power over and transcendence of these forces of nature (cf. I Kings 17-19).!74

Yahweh was described in both male and female imagery, like deities in ancient Near Eastern
prayers. Two examples suffice. In his prayer to Gatumdug, the city-goddess of Lagash, Gudea says:

I have no mother — you are my mother,

I have no father — you are my father,

You implanted in the womb the germ of me,
gave birth to me from out of the vulva (too),
Sweet, O Gatumdug, is your holy name! ??

The poem combines parental imagery of mother and father. The same sentiment appears to
underlie Psalm 27:10.531 By implication compared to Gudea's prayer, this biblical verse suggests
that Yahweh assumes the role of father and mother, thereby affirming divine care. A second-
millennium Hittite prayer likewise attributes both parental roles to Istanu, the sun-god: “Thou,
Istanu, art father and mother of the oppressed, the lonely [and the] bereaved person.”=>2 These
examples illustrate the larger ancient Near Eastern background to the combination of parental roles
for Yahweh. They also show that such combination was already ancient in Near Eastern literature.
Ancient Near Eastern texts indicate that female metaphors do not imply a female status for a god.
Rather, according to ancient Near Eastern categories, a god could be accorded female imagery
without implying that he was considered both male and female. The inverse is true as well: a
goddess could receive male metaphors without meaning that the goddess was thought to be both
female and male. Yahweh could have been attributed female imagery without any influence from
any goddess. Where specific signs of language for the asherah can be discerned (e.g., Prov. 3:13-
18), however, the influence of the asherah on the cult of Yahweh and descriptions of Yahweh may
be recognized.

The relative lack of gender language for Yahweh may be attributed in part to the avoidance of
anthropomorphic imagery for Yahweh. Over the course of its history, Israelite religion reduced
anthropomorphic depictions of Yahweh. This trend is perceptible in both specific, linguistic usages
and general, thematic features. Five areas may be mentioned. First, the legal and prophetic
requirement forbidding images reflects this trend at a relatively early point in Israel’s history.
Second, some biblical sources, such as Psalm 50:12-14, play down the notion of Yahweh consuming
sacrifices despite indications to the contrary.3% Sacrifice is called a “pleasing odor to Yahweh”
(Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, etc.). Numbers 28:2 extends this imagery, calling sacrifices “my offerings, my
food for my offerings by fire, a pleasing odor.” Zephaniah 1:7 mentions the sacrifice to which
Yahweh invites “his guests” (cf. 1 Sam. 9:12-13; 16:3-5). The related notion of the “bread of God”
appears in Leviticus 21:6, 8, 17; 22:25. The background for these expressions seems to have been
the view of sacrifice as a communal celebration where Yahweh and Israelites eat, although a
depiction of divine and human participants eating jointly is unattested (cf. Exod. 24:9-11; Deut.
12:18). The biblical denial of the notion that Yahweh eats offerings in Psalm 50:12-14 suggests,
however, that this was not an uncommon idea; the passage offers a less anthropomorphic rendering
of the divine role in sacrificial celebrations. Third, A. Hurvitz has demonstrated how the book of
Ezekiel avoided anthropomorphisms evident in parallel passages in Leviticus 26.25? Leviticus 26:12
applies to Yahweh the verb hithallaktí (with waw consecutive), *I will walk," but the parallel
passage in Ezekiel 37:26-27 omits the verb. Similarly, Leviticus 26:30 presents Yahweh's
proclamation that “my soul will abhor you” (wéga ‘alah napsi ’etkem). Again the parallel passage in
Ezekiel 6:5 omits the clause.

Fourth, entities personifying divine aspects, such as the divine “name” (Sem), “face” (paním), and
“glory” (kabód), sometimes describe the divine presence in priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions,
attested in the Pentateuch as the priestly (P) and Deuteronomistic (D) traditions or “sources.”==° In
Isaiah 30:27, part of an oracle dated to the eighth or seventh century,??? the divine name serves as
the divine instrument of theophanic wrath: *Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from afar, burning
with his anger, and in thick rising smoke, and his tongue is a devouring fire." In this instance, the
divine name acts as warrior (cf. 1 Sam. 6:2), a depiction frequently applied to Yahweh in earlier

materia1358 and applied later to the divine logos, “word” (Wisd. of Sol. 18:15; Rev. 19:11-16). The
substitution of the angel and the name for Yahweh is an issue in Exodus 32-33.532 Exodus 32:34 and
33:2 declare that an angel will lead Israel. This leadership substitutes for Yahweh’s guidance (Exod.
33:16b). In contrast, Exodus 33:14 states the divine "presence" (paním) will escort the people.
Exodus 23:20-21 exhibits a third variation on this theme. This passage states that the divine name is
in the angel leading Israel (cf. Isa. 63:9). The divine “glory” (kabód) dwells in the temple according
to priestly theology (Ps. 26:8; Isa. 4:5; Ezek. 43:3-5), like the divine “name” in Deuteronomistic
tradition. 999 The “voice” (qól) in Numbers 7:89 might be included in this group of personified
terms (cf. Exod. 25:22).5° Though otherwise devoid of any theophanic characteristics, this usage
perhaps derives ultimately from old theophanic language of the storm (Ps. 29:3-9). These qualities
of the divine seem to be one way to refer to the divine military retinue in its protection and help to
devotees. Some of these divine aspects could not be experienced directly, according to some
biblical passages. Neither Yahweh, nor the divine “face,” panim (Exodus 33-34), nor the divine
“form,” témiinah (Deut. 4:15-16; cf. Num. 12:8; Ps. 17:15; Wisd. of Sol. 18:1),293 were supposed to
be seen, despite indications to the contrary (Exod. 24:9-11; Pss. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3;
Job 33:26; 42:5; cf. Gen. 16:13; judg. 6:22). In discussing those passages, R. S. Hendel comments:
“The belief that one cannot see God and live is best understood as a motif of Israelite folklore,
rooted in popular conceptions concerning purity and danger.”> In these passages, some divine
aspects are not to be directly present to the Israelites.

Fifth, the long tradition of describing the divine council exhibits a decreasingly anthropomorphic
depiction of Yahweh in the works of Ezekiel and the priestly Pentateuchal “source” or tradition.?9?
The earliest texts render Yahweh as a divine monarch enthroned among other heavenly beings. The
divine status of the other members of the council is stressed by terms such as “sons of gods,” bené
'elim (Pss. 29:1; 89:7) and “congregation of the holy ones,” gehal gedösim (Ps. 89:6; cf. Hos. 12:1;
Zech. 14:5). Similarly, "'élohím in Psalm 82:1b apparently means "gods," since it parallels the
“divine council” (‘adat ’él) in verse la. All these texts present Yahweh as the preeminent member of
the divine assembly. In 1 Kings 22:19, Yahweh is surrounded by a heavenly army or “host” (seba’).
The prophetic vision of the divine assembly of Isaiah 6:1 renders Yahweh after the fashion of an
enthroned human king. Ezekiel 1:26 minimizes the anthropomorphism of Isaiah 6:1. Ezekiel
describes the “likeness” (démiit) of God as being “like (ké-) the appearance of a human.” This vision
lessens the anthropomorphism of the divine; it nonetheless renders Yahweh along essentially the
same lines as Isaiah 6. Like Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, Genesis 1:26-28 utilizes the traditional language
of the divine council, as manifest, for example, in the use of the first common plural for divine
speech in Genesis 1:26, a feature found also in Genesis 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. The use of
demút, “likeness,” and selem, “image,” in Genesis 1:26-28 presupposes the vision of the
anthropormorphic god yet reduces the anthropomorphism radically compared to Ezekiel 1:26. In
fact, Genesis 1 achieves the opposite effect of Ezekiel 1:26. While Ezekiel 1:26 conveys the
prophet’s vision of Yahweh in the likeness of the human person, Genesis | presents a vision of the
human person in the likeness of the divine. Rather than reducing Yahweh to human terms through
an anthropomorphic portrait, Genesis 1:26-28 magnifies the human person in divine terms. In this
way, Genesis | draws on the older visionary tradition of the anthropomorphic deity but ultimately
transcends it insofar as it omits any description of the divine.27 In its present context in Genesis

1:26, this anthropomorphic background is muted.*°8

The avoidance of anthropomorphic imagery was by no means a general feature of Israelite
religion after the Exile. While the tendency away from anthropomorphism marks priestly and
Deuteronomistic traditions belonging to the eighth through the fifth centuries, later works belonging
to the priestly traditions continued to transmit anthropomorphic imagery. Postexilic priestly texts,
such as Zechariah 3, attest to the divine council. Zechariah 3:7 includes the high priest in the ranks
of the celestial courts (cf. Zech. 12:8). Postexilic apocalyptic circles also continued
anthropomorphic renderings of Yahweh and the divine council (Daniel 7; cf. Zech. 14:4; 1 Enoch
14).3€? These and other biblical passages (such as Isa. 27:1 ) reflect the continuation of old mythic
material in postexilic Israelite tradition.27? Furthermore, nonbiblical Jewish literature from the
fourth to the second centuries, including 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, represents an additional
source of speculation.?7- The anthropomorphic language of Yahweh, other divine beings, and their
heavenly realms never disappeared from Israel. The relative absence of this imagery from biblical
texts during the second half of the monarchy reflects a religious reaction against Israel’s old
Canaanite heritage. Mythic imagery surfaced again in postexilic priestly traditions, though without
the religious problems that it involved in the pre-exilic period. In the postexilic period, the old

motifs associated with El, Baal, and Asherah in Canaanite tradition ceased to refer to the cults of
deities other than Yahweh. With the death of the cults of the old Canaanite/Israelite deities, the
imagery associated with them continued. Furthermore, the development of the apocalyptic genre
provided fertile ground for mythic material.*/2 This genre more than any other expressed mythic
content in dramatic form. According to M. Stone,273 widespread speculation in such areas as
cosmology, astronomy, and the calendar represents one of the core interests in Jewish apocalypses
(such as 1 Enoch) and a new development in Jewish religious literature. The postexilic interest in
the old mythic content of Israel's Canaanite heritage was consistent with the new interest in cosmic
speculation.

In sum, the picture of Yahweh, the male god without a consort, dominated religious discourse
about the divine in ancient Israel from the Iron II period onward, at least as far as the sources
indicate and assuming that these sources correspond with historical reality to a reasonable degree.
At the same time, male language for Yahweh stood in tension both with less anthropomorphic
descriptions for the deity and metaphors occasionally including female imagery or combining it
with male imagery. This state of affairs resembled neither a Greek philosophical notion of Deity as
nonsexual Being nor some type of divine bisexuality. Rather, Israelite society perceived Yahweh
primarily as a god, although Yahweh was viewed also as embodying traits or values expressed by
various gendered metaphors and as transcending such particular renderings.

Just as some features of El and Baal can be perceived in the nature of Yahweh, it is possible to
trace some female images for Yahweh to the goddess Asherah or at least her symbol, the asherah.
Near Eastern examples invoking various gods in female and male language demonstrate how pliable
language for a god or goddess could be, incorporating even language of the opposite sex. Female
language for Yahweh could have stemmed from the flexibility of divine language. In those cases
where the literary use of imagery specific to the asherah seems to function as the background for
biblical divine language, as in Proverbs 3:13-18, the goddess, or at least her symbol, apparently
made an impact, just as the gods El and Baal affected the shape of some male portrayals of Yahweh.
Indeed, since the impact of the imagery of the asherah can be detected in some instances, it may be
argued that its effects were more widespread than can be perceived at present.

CHAPTER 4

Yahweh and the Sun

1. The Biblical Record

The amount of solar language used for Yahweh is quite limited in the Bible. The classic example is
Psalm 84:12: kf Semes úmagen yhwh, traditionally rendered, “for a sun and a shield is Yahweh.”
While this language is figurative (as noted in section 2 below), it assumes that the divine could be
described in solar terms. Psalm 84 also reflects the larger context for the Bible’s application of solar
language to Yahweh. Psalm 84 displays the setting of a pilgrim longing for the experience of God in
the temple in Jeruslaem. Verse 9b speaks of Yahweh as being “seen in Zion.” The psalm presents a
temple setting that explicitly draws on solar language for God to express the motif of “seeing God,”
in the psalms an expression for divine presence (Pss. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3; cf. Judg.
14:20, 22; cf. 1 Sam. 1:22), later transformed into a motif of seeing God or the divine glory in the
future (Isa. 35:2; 52:8; 66:5, 18).27* Like Psalm 84, Psalms 42-43 exhibit the setting of a pilgrim
longing for the temple in Jerusalem. Like Psalm 84:9b, Psalm 42:3 speaks of "seeing God." The
solar language in Psalm 84:12 would seem to constitute an expression for divine presence in the
Jerusalem temple. Indeed, the setting of Psalm 84 and the explicit reference to the divine presence
by the expression of “seeing God” in Psalm 84:9b supports this idea. The eastern orientation of the
Jerusalem temple has led to speculative theories regarding the solarized character of Yahweh.?7?
Psalms of vigil, such as Psalms 17, 27, and 63,276 and Ezekiel 8:16277 similarly suggest that the sun
evoked at least the luminescent dimension of the divine presence, perhaps in keeping with a solar
interpretation of Yahweh (cf. Zeph. 1:3; Ben Sira 49:7; Baruch 4:24). It might be argued that the
simile for the appearance of the high priest in Ben Sira 50:7, “like the sun shining on the temple of
the King" (NAB), derived from solar theophanic language in the context of the temple. Other
passages, such as Josh. 10:12-13, suggest the sun (and the moon) as deities ultimately subservient to
Yahweh.278

There are other instances of solar metaphor for Yahweh. These include describing Yahweh with
the verbal root *zrh, “rise,” in Deuteronomy 33:2, Isaiah 60:1, Hosea 6:3, and once in the Kuntillet
“Ajrúd inscriptions.2 This word is the normal verb for the rising of the sun (Judg. 9:33; 2 Sam.
23:4; Nah. 3:17; Jon. 4:8; Job 9:7; Ps. 104:4; Eccles. 1:5; cf. Judg. 5:31). Biblical and extrabiblical
Yahwistic names with the elements *shr, “dawn,” zrh, “rise,” and “n(w)r, “light,” may point to a

solarized Yahwism.2%

Ezekiel 8:16 and 2 Kings 23:5, 11 criticize solar worship in the Jerusalem temple in the final
decades of the Judean monarchy. Some scholars argue that these passages point to solar worship,
either as an indigenous practice or as a result of Mesopotamian or Aramaean influence.*®! Ezekiel
8:16 belongs to a section detailing a number of cultic practices (including worship of idols and
women weeping for Tammuz) conducted in the temple precincts:

And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord; and behold, at the door of the
temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their
backs to the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the
east.

The verse interprets this cultic activity that takes place in the temple as worship of the sun. It is of
further interest that the location of the practice points to priests as the culprits, unless this
interpretation anachronistically assumes that only priests were permitted in this part of the temple.

In its denunciation of various temple practices, 2 Kings 23:11 includes “the chariots of the sun”
(markeböt hassemes).282 The picture is apparently one of chariots carrying the sun on its course,
being pulled by horses. Archaeological findings may add to this picture. Horse figurines with a sun
disk above their heads have been discovered at Iron Age levels at Lachish, Hazor, and Jerusalem.
383 The uppermost register of the tenth-century stand from Taanach likewise bears a sun disk above
the body of a young bul1.3% At Ramat Rahel, two seals dating to the Persian period (ca. 587-333)
depict bulls with solar disks between their horns.29? Finally, the imagery of divine wings, as in
Psalms 17:18, 36:7, 57:1,61:4, and 63:7, invites comparison with the winged sun disk represented

on pre-exilic seals (although the imagery could have coalesced with the iconography of the
cherubim in the Judean temple). It would appear from Ezekiel 8:16 and 2 Kings 23:11 that either
solar worship or worship of a solarized Yahweh took place in the temple during the waning years of
the Judean monarchy.

Job 31:26-28 refers to an astral rite of some sort, although its precise setting is unclear:

If I have looked at the light [i.e., sun] when it shone,

or the moon moving in splendor,

and my heart has been secretly enticed,

and my mouth has kissed my hand;

this also would have been an iniquity to be punished by the judges,

for I should have been false to God above.2%

Like 2 Kings 23:5, this passage connects solar worship with lunar devotion. Whether an indigenous
development or a foreign import, these practices were allowed by the Judean dynasty at times to
take place within the cult of its national god.

Several scholars situate solar or astral devotion in Iron II Judah within a larger context of the
“astralization” of the chief god in a number of Levantine pantheons.2% The criticism of solar cult in
the Bible may be approached from a further religious perspective. Following ancient Near Eastern
tradition, the procession of divine “glory” (kabód) described in Ezekiel 43:1-5 perhaps combines
language from different realms of nature. The return of the warrior-god Ningirsu to his temple is
rendered in both storm and solar language. °8 An enameled tile from the reign of the ninth-century
Assyrian monarch Tukulti-Ninurta 115% also provides an analogue to the description of the divine in
Ezekiel 43:1-5. The tile depicts the god Assur??? riding the winged sun disk with drawn bow aimed
at the enemies of the king. On either side are storm clouds with rain falling. Enuma Elish 1:101-2,
157, and 11:128-29 apply solar qualities to Marduk, although storm language is more characteristic
of him.2 The combination of solar and storm imagery and iconography in Mesopotamian sources
and biblical texts raises an important issue. By combining two types of natural phenomena, Psalm
50:1-3 and Ezekiel 43:1-5 suggest that the divine nature is beyond identification with a single
natural phenomenon. In effect, Yahweh is equated metaphorically with natural phenomena, but also
has power over and transcends these natural phenomena. Like Ningirsu and Marduk, Yahweh 1s
"supernatural."

This perspective may help to explain criticism of the solar cult in the temple in Ezekiel 8:16.
According to this passage, solar rendering of Yahweh reduced the divine to a form of natural
idolatry, perhaps identified with the cult of a foreign deity. It may be argued, however, that the
“idolatry” was an indigenous form of Yahwistic cult. Psalm 84 and other evidence for solar
language predicated of Yahweh militates against interpreting solar worship in the temple as non-
Yahwistic. There is no evidence for a separate sun cult, and the explanation of foreign influence
remains a matter of speculation. Indeed, the notion that neo-Assyrian rulers imposed their religious
practices on their Levantine subjects has been discredited.%2 The theopolitical function of
Yahwistic solar language may be further understood in the context of solar language predicated of
the monarchy, both in Judah and elsewhere.

2. The Role of the Monarchy

Although the evidence is largely circumstantial, the application of solar language and imagery to
Yahweh may have gained momentum under the impetus of the monarchy. The title of “the (divine)
sun” goes back to royal titularies beginning in the second half of the third millennium. The
Mesopotamian rulers, Ur-Nammu, Amar-Sin, Lipit-Ishtar, Hammurapi, and Zimri-Lim, are
compared to the sun-god.2% In international correspondence of the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200),
solar language for monarchs is common. In this period, letters from El Amarna and Ugarit attest to
the use of the title “the Sun” for the kings of Egypt, Hatti, and Ugarit. For example, in KTU
2.16.6-10 Talmiyanu speaks to his mother, Thariyelli, concerning his audience before the Ugaritic
king: "umy td‘ ky ‘rbt Ipn Sps wpn Sps nr by m’id, “My mother, you must know that I have entered
before the Sun and the face of the Sun shone upon me greatly"??? This text also furnishes
background not only to Psalm 84:12’s image of the divine king as the “Sun” and the shining of his
face, but also to the biblical language of the shining of Yahweh’s face elsewhere (e.g., Pss. 4:7;
31:17; 34:6; 67:2; 80:4, 8, 20; 89:16; 90:8; 119:25; Num. 6:24-26). Similarly, CTA 64 (KTU
3.1).24-25 reads: ‘argmn nqmd mlk 'ugrt dybllšpš mik rb b'Ih, “The tribute of Niqmaddu king of
Ugarit, which was brought to the Sun, the great king, his lord.”% Finally, EA 147:59-60 records
how the speaker has asked through a messenger when he will enter into the presence of the pharaoh.
“Behold I have sent (a message) to the Sun, the father of the king, my lord (asking): ‘When shall I
see the face of the king, my lord?’” (ma-ti-mi i-mur pa-ni sarri be-li-ya).?9? This question bears a
striking resemblance to the wording of Psalm 42:3c: *When shall I come and behold the face of
God?”2% The Ugaritic and Amarna letters would suggest that during the Late Bronze Age, New
Kingdom Egypt was the source of this theology. 29? It spread to the rest of the Levant, leaving its
imprint on biblical expressions for deity and king.

In the Iron Age, the Israelite king was described, as was Yahweh, in solar metaphor, sometimes in
combination with rain imagery. Like Hosea 6:3 and perhaps Ezekiel 43:2, which compare Yahweh

to both the sun and the rain, 2 Samuel 23:3b-4 compares the king to the sun as it dawns and the

rain as it causes grass to grow:

When one rules justly over people,

ruling in the fear of God,

he dawns (yizrah) on them like the morning light,
like the sun bright upon a cloudless morning,

like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth.

Like 2 Samuel 23:3b-4, Psalm 72:5-6 first invokes the sun as an image of royal durability and then
uses the lush rains as a metaphor for the well-being generated by the monarchy. The royal use of
solar imagery extended to the winged sun disk on the royal dall stamp seals found on jar
handles. The inscription nryhw bn hmlk, “Neriyahu son of the king,” may be mentioned in this
connection. Here a solar attribution to Yahweh may lie behind the name of the king’s son.°® Given
these bits of evidence for the royal background of divine solar language, P. K. McCarter suggests
revocalizing MT úmagen in Psalm 84:12 to úmagán, understanding the half-verse to mean “for a
sun and a sovereign is Yahweh.”®4 Both titles render Yahweh as a divine suzerain. The royal
context of this passage, exemplified by the reference to the “anointed” of Yahweh in verse 10,
supports this interpretation.

The use of solar imagery for the monarch continued into the postexilic period. Malachi 3:20°5
utilizes solar imagery to paint a picture of Israel’s future savior and the effects that savior will have
on Israel:

But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise (zarébah) with healing in its
wings.

Similarly, Isaiah 58:8 uses solar language to describe the “theophany of the righteous,” with the
divine glory serving as the rearguard (cf. Judg. 5:31):

Then shall your light ("óreka) break forth like the dawn (kassahar),
and your healing shall spring up (tismah) speedily;

your righteousness shall go before you,

the glory of Yahweh shall be your rearguard.

Like 2 Samuel 23:3-4 and Psalm 72:5-6, the first part of this verse employs solar imagery®° and

the second evokes imagery of natural growth. Isaiah 58:8 perhaps applies the royal theology
expressed in 2 Samuel 23:3-4,607 not to a royal group, but to Israel as a whole.“% The royal
background is perhaps echoed in the verb tismáh, although Isaiah 58:8 in following 2 Samuel 23:4b
employs this verb in its natural sense. Davidic kings were compared to a “shoot,” semah (Jer. 23:5;
33:15; Zech. 3:8; cf. Zech. 6:12; KAT 43:10-11; Isa. 11:1, 4-5, 10; cf. 4:2; Ben Sira 47:22; 51:12
h)£2 Both Malachi 3:20 and Isaiah 58:8 mention healing, a blessing evidently rooted in the old
royal idea that the monarch provides well-being for his subjects. Finally, the royal iconography of
the winged sun disk compares well with the description of the royal scion in Malachi 3:20.

While the evidence is meager, solar language for Yahweh apparently developed under the
monarchy’s influence. Stated differently, the application of solar language to Yahweh was a
consequence of Yahweh’s status as national god. Moreover, there are Late Bronze and Iron Age
analogues for this development. In Assyria, the solar disk, originally the symbol of the sun-god,
Shamash, was used for the national god, Assur.*! Similarly, “Babylonian theologians” (to use W.
G. Lambert’s term) call their national god, Marduk, the “sun-god of the gods” in Enuma Elish 1:102
and 6:127.61l A small god-list identifies various deities with specific functions of Marduk.%!2
Shamash is the “Marduk of justice.” Another text states that “Shamash is Marduk of the law-suit.”
£13 On a stele from Ugarit, the winged sun disk belongs to a scene depicting the enthroned ፲:1.6፤5
The sun disk appears with b ‘7 hmn on an inscribed stone known as the Kilamuwa orthostat.$? These
analogues illustrate the assimilation of solar imagery to a chief deity. The solar imagery for the
patron god in the royal setting served to enhance the power of the monarchy through identification
with the power of the divine king. More specifically, the solar imagery, insofar as it was applied to
both the king and the god, enhanced the divine aura of the human king.

To summarize, solar language for Yahweh apparently developed in two stages. First, it originated
as part of the Canaanite, and more generally Near Eastern, heritage of divine language as an
expression of general theophanic luminosity. Like Ningirsu, Assur, and Marduk, Yahweh could be
rendered in either solar or storm terms or both together. Second, perhaps under the influence of the
monarchy, in the first millennium the sun became one component of the symbolic repertoire of the
chief god in Israel just as it did in Assur, Babylon, and Ugarit.9 In Israel it appears to have been a
special feature of the southern monarchy, since the available evidence is restricted to Judah; it is not
attested in the northern kingdom. Furthermore, it seems to have been a special expression of Judean
royal theology. It expressed and reinforced dimensions of both divine and human kingship. This
form of solarized Yahwism may have appeared to the authors of Ezekiel 8 and 2 Kings 23 as an
idolatrous solar cult incompatible with their notions of Yahweh.97

3. The Assimilation of Solar Imagery

The solar descriptions of Yahweh during the monarchy perhaps furnish the background to
descriptions of the sun in biblical cosmology. According to N. Sarna, Psalm 19 uses solar language
as a polemic against solar worship in Israel, as reflected in Ezekiel 8:16 and 2 Kings 23.4% The tone
of Psalm 19 is, however, not polemical. In addition, the sun in Psalm 19:4-6 plays a role perhaps
analogous to the Torah in verses 7-10: both attest to the glory of God. Similarly, the function of the
sun as providing order in the cosmos in Genesis 1:14 and Psalm 104:19 has been related to this
same theme by H. P. Stühli.S? These religious expressions are not to be seen only as polemic,
although this point is frequently made in the case of Genesis 1:14.92 Rather, the sun serves as a
positive sign of order in Yahweh's creation. Reduced to a sign of divine order, solar imagery in
these cases represents instances of “a harmless sun” (Wisd. of Sol. 18:3; cf. Letter of Jeremiah 6:60;
Odes of Solomon 15:2).21

CHAPTER 5

Yahwistic Cultic Practices

1. Yahwistic Cultic Symbols and Sites

As chapter 3 describes, the biblical record condemns the goddess Asherah much less frequently than
the asherah. The symbol was initially an acceptable feature of Yahwistic cult, but later was treated
as a non-Yahwistic aberration. In legal materials, the symbol of the asherah is not alone the object of
opprobrium. Exodus 34:13 condemns not only the asherim of the other peoples previously in the
land, but also “their altars” (mizbehotám) and “their pillars” (massēbðtām). Pillars are denounced
also in Deuteronomy 16:22 following a condemnation of the asherah in the previous verse. To this
list of abominations Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3 add “their graven images” (pesiléhem). Prophetic
condemnations of the asherah and asherim likewise include other cultic paraphernalia. Isaiah 17:8
and 27:9 denounce other deities’ altars, asherim, and incense altars (hammaním). Jeremiah 17:2
includes not only altars and asherim in its criticism, but also the “high places" (bamót) where these
objects were considered to have been used. The oracle of Micah 5:10-15 is more inclusive;
sorceries, soothsayers, images, pillars, and asherim are all to be swept away by Yahweh.22

Some of these practices belonged to Yahwistic cult prior to and following the periods when legal
and prophetic condemnations were raised against them. Like the asherah, the “high places” were
acceptable both in the period of the Judges and during the monarchy.2 In 1 Samuel 9-10 Samuel is
described con-ducting worship at a high place, and in 1 Kings 3:4-5, Solomon goes to the high place
of Gibeon, where Yahweh appears to him in a dream. A Deuteronomistic apology for Solomon’s use
of the high place (cf. Deut. 12:1-14), verse 2 reads: “The people were sacrificing at the high places,
however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord.” Verse 3 relates how
Solomon sacrificed and burned incense at the high places, indicating royal support for these
traditional religious practices. The text of 2 Kings 23:8 (cf. 2 Chron. 14:4) suggests that high places
functioned in Israel down to the reign of Josiah. Amos 7:9 refers to the high places in the northern
kingdom. Like the royal religion of the central sanctuaries (Amos 7:13), the high places were staffed
with priests (1 Kings 13:2, 33; 23:20; 2 Kings 23:8-9) who conducted sacrifice (2 Kings 18:22;
23:15; Ezek. 18:6,15; 20:28; cf. 2 Kings 17:11; Ezek. 6:3-4). The geographical range of the high
places likewise reflects widespread popular support for high places. High places were present in
both rural (Ezek. 6:13; cf. Hos. 4:13) and urban settings (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 23:8),2% probably
for clan religion, as opposed to sanctuaries and temples, which operated for higher levels of social
complexity (tribes and nations), under “higher” authorities (traditional priestly lines at sanctuaries,
some employed as monarchic functionaries).

Like the asherah, high places were not specific to Israelite society, but belonged to a broader
cultural picture. The Mesha stele (KAI 181:3), Isaiah 15:2, 16:12, and Jeremiah 48:35 indicate that
high places were a feature of Moabite religion as well. Perhaps, like the asherah and high places,
some of the other items mentioned in Micah 5:10-15 were initially acceptable in Yahwistic cult but
later condemned. This was also the fate of some practices concerning the dead and child sacrifice,
as the following sections illustrate.

2. Practices Associated with the Dead

The practices in the Bible concerning the dead belonged to Israel’s Canaanite heritage. Feeding the
dead (KTU 1.20-22; 1.142), consulting the dead (KTU 1.124; 1.161; cf. KAI 214), and mourning
the dead (KTU 1.5 VI 11-22, 31-1.6 I 5) were all part of Canaanite religion. Ancient Israel
continued most of these practices in juxtaposition with Yahwistic cult. A work by K. Spronk has
sought to minimize the Canaanite/Israelite nature of Israelite customs pertaining to the dead by
distinguishing between Yahwistic religion and popular religion. The first is identified as
Yahwistic and eschews practices associated with the Canaanites. The second is considered non-
Yahwistic and embraces the Canaanite customs of the dead. Spronk defines neither the constitution
and development of official Yahwistic religion, nor how this Yahwistic religion or the “mainstream
of Yahwistic religion” functioned with official status in the nation, nor how it gave rise to the
Hebrew Bible, assumed to be the official expression of “official Yahwistic religion.” In short, the
official religious policy of pre-exilic Israel does not conform to the societal bearers of the official
religion defined by Spronk. To believe Isaiah (28:7; 30:10) and Jeremiah (2:26-28; 6:13), all sectors
of Israelite society, including priests, prophets, and kings, participated in what was later condemned
as non-Yahwistic religion. This problem is by no means restricted to practices pertaining to the dead
but to deities and their cult symbols as well. Therefore, either the Law and the literary prophets do
not represent the official religion of Israel, or a clear distinction between official and popular
religion cannot be supported, at least for some deities and some cultic practices. As with the symbol
of the asherah, some practices involving the dead, initially conducted without legal or prophetic

criticism, were later regarded as non-Yahwistic.©°

The only practice associated with the dead that was possibly forbidden prior to the seventh
century was necromancy. Condemnation of necromancy is not recorded for any prophet before
Isaiah (8:19; cf. 19:3; 29:4; cf. 57:6) or any legal code before the Holiness Code (Lev. 19:26-28;
20:6-7; cf. Deut. 18:10-11). The only passage perhaps suggesting that necromancy was viewed
negatively before 750 is 1 Samuel 28, the story of the Necromancer of Endor. The chapter tells how
by means of a female medium Saul inquired of the dead Samuel, whose appearance in verse 13 is
called '¿lóhím, “a divine one.” Verse 3 relates: “and Saul had put away the mediums and wizards of
the land” (wesa'úl hesir ha'obót wé’et-hayyidé‘onim méha’ares). This verse claims that Saul had
banished necromancers. It may be noted in passing that 1 Samuel 28 does not address other
practices involving the dead condemned in later legal and prophetic material. The material in 1
Samuel 28:3, as noted by commentators, 27 may have been an editorial addition. The narrator,
perhaps a Deuteronomistic one, supplies background information, and indeed, some formulas in this
verse are reminiscent of Deuteronomy 18:10-11. As in Deuteronomy 18:10-11, the issue in 1
Samuel 28:3 involves securing otherworldly information from a source deemed unacceptable to the
author.28 The concern was not simply what was acceptable to so-called normative Yahwistic
religion. Rather, the issue concerns a form of inquiry that competed with prophecy in ancient Israel.
Like Isaiah 8:16-20 and Deuteronomy 18:9-22, 1 Samuel 28:3 frames the question of inquiry as a
form of appropriating information from sources that some pre-exilic prophets and Deuteronomists
considered wrong. Indeed, necromancy competed with prophecy (Isa. 8:19-20; 29:4; cf. Lev. 19:26).
Later tradition understood the necromancy described in 1 Samuel 28 as an occasion of prophecy
(Ben Sira 46:20). What is reflected in 1 Samuel 28:3 is either a later belief that Saul had banished

necromancy or, less likely, a genuine pre-750 negative attitude toward necromancy.22

Like 1 Samuel 28:3, Psalm 106:28 and Numbers 25:2 have been taken as early criticisms of cult
practices pertaining to the dead. Psalm 106:28 reads: “They yoked themselves to Baal Peor, and ate
the sacrifices of the dead” (zibhé métim). This verse is dependent on Numbers 25:2,% which does
not condemn practices associated with the dead; rather, it forbids “sacrifices of their gods” (zibhé
‘élohéhen). Psalm 106:28 condemns the sacrifices intended for the dead. Elsewhere the dead are
called ’élohim, “gods,” as in 1 Samuel 28:3 and Isaiah 8:19. KTU 1.6 VI 45-49 illustrates this
usage. In these four lines, rp 'im, “rephaim,” is parallel with ’ilnym, “divinities,” and "ilm, *gods," is
parallel with mtm, “the dead.” The second and third terms are etymologically related to Hebrew
‘Elohim, “gods.” Similarly, Akkadian ilu and Phoenician ‘Jn are used for the dead. Numbers 25:2

does not address the issue of sacrifices to the dead; only Psalm 106:28 does so. Psalm 106:40-47
refers to the Exile, indicating that this psalm was exilic or later. To be sure, it could be argued that
verse 28 predates the Exile; nonetheless, it is unlikely that this verse is historically pertinent for

examining practices with respect to the dead before the seventh century.

Prior to ca. 750, Israelites engaged not only in necromancy but probably in other practices
pertaining to the dead. Early veneration for the dead probably included funerary mourning for the
dead, feeding the dead, and invoking the dead as sources of divine information and perhaps aid.
Negative criticism or negative depictions of customs concerning the dead first appeared around the
middle of the eighth century, perhaps as a response to the competition that necromancy posed to
prophecy. During the Iron Age, other practices associated with the dead were conducted without
conflicting with the cult of Yahweh; not even later criticisms recorded in the Bible suggest
otherwise.

Explicit objections to feeding the dead with the tithe of Yahweh appear in the seventh century
(Deut. 26:14; cf. Psalm 16, and MT Ps. 22:30, which refers to the dead). Following a late eighth-
century criticism of necromancy in Isaiah 8:16-20a,93? Isaiah 8:20b-21 possibly describes the dead
who go about the land hungry:

Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. He will pass through the land, greatly
distressed and hungry; and when he is hungry, he will be enraged and will curse his king and
God, and turn his face upward; and they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and
darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness.

This passage plays on the time of day when necromancy takes place, namely at night (1 Sam.
28:8; cf. Isa. 65:4). The *word" 15 not to be successful; it has no “dawn.” The subject of the verbs is
unclear. MT and lQIsa? read the verbs in the singular beginning in verse 21 with 'abar; LXX
renders the verbs in the plural. The one whose word has no dawn has no immediate antecedent; the
closest antecedent is hammétim, “the dead,” in verse 19b, although this section 1s often regarded as a
secondary addition, since it seems unconnected to the preceding material.®4 The antecedents often
proposed for these verbs are Jerusalem or the land.$3? Yet there is no comparable description of
either Jerusalem or the land in biblical literature. The verbs perhaps characterize the dead, as found
elsewhere. The interpretation of *'br for the dead has been maintained for Ezekiel 39:11, 14.936 This
interpretation would clarify the images at the end of Isaiah 8:21b-22, that the dead will turn their
faces upward to the earth and that they will be thrust into the darkness of the netherworld. The terms
“king” and “god” are more difficult to understand, but elsewhere these terms both refer to the dead.
Biblical and extrabiblical parallels to the use of “god” for the dead have been noted above. The term
of king (mlk) may refer to the leader of the dead, like Ugaritic m/k in KTU 1.108.1 and perhaps
surviving in a few biblical passages, such as Isaiah 57:9, a passage also dealing with necromancy
(cf. Amos 5:26; Zeph. 1:5, 8; see below). In KTU 1.108.1, rp’u is called the “eternal king” (mlk
‘Im), probably designating his leadership of the dead described in the following lines as
“companions” or “divined ones” (hbrm).°2 In Isaiah 8:21b the dead curse their leadership, their
“king” and “god,” and look upward to the land of the living for help. In any case, Isaiah 8:20b-22,
although secondary in nature, may continue the criticism of Isaiah 8:16-20a against necromancy.
Necromancy appears in prophetic condemnations dating to the seventh and sixth centuries (Jer.
27:9; Ezek. 13:17-23).

Legislation forbids the specific mourning customs of cutting hair or skin on account of the dead
(Lev. 19:27-28; 21:5; Deut. 14:1 ). These texts appear to belong also to the second half of the
monarchy, although the legal material of the Holiness Code is difficult to date.$35 These funerary
customs passed uncriticized in the prophets of the eighth (Isa. 7:20; 15:3; 22:12; Hos. 7:14; Amos
8:10; Mic. 1:16; cf. Isa. 19:3) and sixth centuries (Jer. 7:29; 41:5). Only necromancy may have been
viewed negatively prior to 750, if 1 Samuel 28:3 reflects historically reliable information. In 2
Kings 21:6 it 1s reported that Manasseh permitted necromancy, and 2 Kings 23:24 credits Josiah
with eliminating (b7‘ér) necromancers and mediums. Down to this late point in the monarchy and
perhaps beyond, necromancy flourished.

It would appear also that prior to the seventh century, feeding the dead and funerary practices of
mourning and veneration for the dead flourished in various social strata and quarters of Israelite
society. The ritual actions surrounding the dead perhaps formed a central feature of family life
throughout Israel’s history. A. Malamat has made the interesting suggestion that the feast mentioned

in 1 Samuel 20:6 represented a family funerary celebration.%2 During the reigns of some monarchs,

various funerary practices flourished under royal auspices. Royal tombs were presumably elaborate
affairs (Isa. 22:15-17; Ezek. 32:11-32; cf. Isa. 28:16-20), although not different in type from the
graves of nonroyalty (cf. Judith 16:23).™° Israelite royalty participated in the common West Semitic
custom of erecting funerary steles. According to 2 Samuel 18:18, Absalom erected a funerary stele
in his own memory, “for he thought, ‘I have no son to invoke my name,” ba ábür hazkir Semi (cf.
Isa. 56:5; 66:3).“! A Persian-period inscription from Kition records a similar funerary inscription:
msbt lmbhy ... °l mškb nhty l‘Im w/'sty, "a stele for among the living ... on my eternal resting place
and for my wife” (KAI 35:1- 3). A Hellenistic-period Phoenician inscription from the environs of
Athens (KAI 53) likewise attests to the practice of erecting a stele (msbt) as a “memorial,” skr, a
term apparently cognate with *zkr. A third-century Phoenician inscription from Lapethos (KAI
43:6) records a commemoration for a father by a son (cf. KAI 34:1; CIS 44:1; 46:1-2; 57:1-2; 58:1;
59:1; 60:1; 61:1; RES 1208). This Phoenician funerary practice is also mentioned by Philo of
Byblos (PE 1.10.10): “He says that when these men died, those who survived them dedicated staves
to them. They worshipped the steles and conducted annual festivals for them.”%%2 The practice of
erecting commemorative steles is also attested in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.17 I 28; 6.13; 6.14).

Interacting with deceased ancestors was a practice that occurred among Aramaean and Israelite
royalty. KAI 214:16, 21 records how the Aramaean king Panammu entreats his sons to invoke the
name (yzkr $m) of the god Hadad and his own name after his death.“ In 2 Chronicles 16:12 is
recorded a tradition that Asa sought medical help from “doctors” (eröpe‘im) for his diseased feet. A
contextual difficulty suggests that the correct reading may be not ropé'im but *répà ‘im, the dead
ancestors. According to the verse Asa’s feet contracted an unspecified disease. The verse continues:
“yet even in his disease he [Asa] did not seek Yahweh, but sought help from physicians (ropé’im).”
The contrast drawn between the help of Yahweh and the aid of physicians appears forced, as seeking
help from doctors is not contrary to seeking help from Yahweh. However, if the reading of the word
were not ropé’im, “physicians,” but * räpä’im, “the dead,” the objection would be clear.$4
Furthermore, the verb “drs, translated in this context as “seek help,” is a regular term for divination.
Seeking help from divinized dead ancestors runs counter to the prohibitions in Deuteronomy 18:10-
11 and Isaiah 8:19-20 and the narrative of 1 Samuel 28:3. Though securing the favor of deceased
ancestors was criticized in the eighth century and afterward in Israel, it was part of Israel's
Canaanite heritage, paralleled in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.161).

In 2 Kings 9:34-37 is apparently reflected the special concern for the proper burial of the royal
dead. T. J. Lewis has proposed that the description of the disposal of Jezebel’s corpse in this passage
refers to traditional funerary custom. The command of Jehu to attend to Jezebel’s corpse, pigdti-na’,
does not mean simply to “take care of” or “see to” in a general sense. Rather, this root has a cultic
sense, tied to funerary ritual. It means to “act as a paqidu on her behalf in fulfilling the customary
funerary rites, including the essential services of the cult of the dead.”“® The command is
motivated by Jezebel’s royal lineage, “for she was a king’s daughter” (ki bat-melek hi’). If this
interpretation of this passage is correct, it would suggest that Jehu adhered to traditional funerary
practices. With regard to practices involving the dead, royal and popular religion belonged to the
same fabric.

Support for traditional practices pertaining to the dead extended beyond the lives of common
people and royalty. At least some priests tolerated royal funerary traditions (Ezek. 43:7-9). The
prophets in the early periods did not object to necromancy. Here comparing the criticisms against
the marzeah feast conducted by the well-to-do in Amos 6:1-7 and Jeremiah 16:5-9 is illustrative.#
The earlier prophet Amos deplores the marzeah not because of any funerary association, as the later
Jeremiah does, but because of the exploitation of the poor symbolized in the lavish luxuries enjoyed
in the feast. The story of Elisha’s bones in 2 Kings 13:20-21 also shows that prophetic circles in the
northern kingdom prior to its fall could treat the power of the dead in a positive manner (cf. Ben
Sira 48:13).

Belief in the life of the dead continued for centuries. In the postexilic period, practices concerning
the dead persisted. Isaiah 57:6-7 mocks the Israelite practice of feeding the dead: “with the dead of
the wadi is your portion, they, they are your lot. Even to them have you poured out a drink offering,
you have brought a cereal offering.” Verse 9 mocks necromancy: “You have journeyed to the
king (mik) with oil, and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off and sent down even
to Sheol.” Isaiah 65:4 criticizes “those who sit among graves and lodge in vaults.” Feeding the dead
continued in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. While Ben Sira condones proper lamentation and

burial for the dead (38:16-17), he takes a negative view of feeding the dead: “Good things poured
out upon a mouth that is closed are like offerings of food placed upon a grave” (30:18).2 Tobit
4:17 refers positively to either feeding the dead or the living mourners on the behalf of the dead:
“Place your bread on the grave of the righteous, but give none to sinners.”

Necromancy and prayer to the dead for help likewise continued for a long time in Jewish society.
Necromancy is condemned in Isaiah 59:9. Communication with the dead is discussed also in a
number of Talmudic passages and in intertestamental literature. According to Shabbat 152a-b, the
dead hear what is said in their presence until decomposition begins; after that point the righteous
dead cannot be reached through necromancy. According to Berakot 18b, a man visiting a cemetery
received a message from a dead woman: “Tell my mother to send me my comb and my tube of eye-
paint by so and so who is coming here tommorrow."$?9 The same passage relates how a man heard
two spirits in conversation. Praying to the dead is mentioned in 2 Baruch 85:12°! and Pseudo-Philo
33:5.952 According to Sotah 34b, Caleb went to Hebron to the grave of the patriarchs and prayed:
“My fathers, ask mercy for me.”

Later Jewish literature points to communication with the dead and belief in their powers. At the
beginning of the tenth century A.D., the Karaite scholar Sahl ben Mazli’ah complained:

How can I remain silent when some Jews are behaving like idolators? They sit at the graves,
sometimes sleeping there at night, and appeal to the dead: “Oh, Rabbi Yose ha-Gelih! Heal me!
Grant me children!” They kindle lights there and offer incense....

Concern for the dead and belief in the dead’s powers derived from Israel’s earliest Canaanite

heritage, as reflected in the Ugaritic texts.

3. The mik Sacrifice

The divine recipients of the m/k sacrifice vary within the same cultures. In Israel mlk in Jeremiah
19:5 and 32:35 (cf. 2 Kings 17:16-17) is a term for a human sacrifice intended allegedly for
[3881.955 Psalm 106:34-38 attributes child sacrifice to Baal Peor. According to 2 Kings 17:31 the
Sepharvites devoted child sacrifice to two gods, Adrammelek and Anammelek.$36 Jeremiah 7:31;
19:5, and 32:35 deny that mlk sacrifice was offered in Yahweh’s name; these denials may suggest
that offering this sacrifice in Yahweh's name occurred (cf. Lev. 18:21; 20:3; Genesis 22). Ezekiel
20:25-26 provides a theological rationale for Yahweh causing child sacrifice:

Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have
life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born,
that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.

These passages indicate that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed
in the name of Yahweh.$?7 Isaiah 30:27-33 appears as the best evidence for the early practice of
child sacrifice in Israel. According to P. Mosca, the image of child sacrifice in this eighth- or
seventh-century passage serves as a way to describe Yahweh's coming destruction of Israel.$58 In
this text there is no offense taken at the tophet, the precinct of child sacrifice. It would appear that
Jerusalemite cult included child sacrifice under Yahwistic patronage; it is this that Leviticus 20:2-5
deplores. Ezekiel 16:20, 21, 36 and 23:39 assume that child sacrifice was intended for a multiplicity
of deities. The legal proscriptions against child sacrifice in the Holiness Code (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5)
and in Deuteronomy 12:31 and 18:10 are unclear regarding the divine recipients. Leviticus 20:2-5
suggests that this sacrifice is not to take place in Yahweh’s temple, perhaps to avoid performance of
it in his name.

Phoenician and Punic texts designate more than one recipient of the mlk sacrifice. A mlk offering
is perhaps attested once for Eshmun in the only m/k text from the Phoenician mainland.©? Evidence
for a mlk-child sacrifice has also been reported for an unpublished Phoenician basalt stele
discovered in 1993 in the southeastern Turkish village of Injirli.£% Dated to the late eighth century,
the inscription recounts two battles. Zuckerman and Kaufman comment : “Of particular importance

. 1s the detailed discussion of the use of mulk-sacrifices of sheep, horses, and — if we read
correctly — first-born humans in the process of war, and the gods’ reactions to those sacrifices.”
Zuckerman and Kaufman relate this discovery to the mik-sacrifice known from around the
Mediterranean. The mlk sacrifice in the western Mediterranean was offered to b'1 hmm and mt. Dë)
According to Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History XX, 14:4-7, Kronos was the recipient of child
sacrifices at Carthage. %2 A tradition of some version of infant sacrifice introduced by the
Phoenicians to Crete in the early Iron Age may lie behind a number of reports in classical
sources.°® The Cretans sent their firstborn to Delphi to be sacrificed (Plutarch, Theseus 16, citing
Aristotle, Constitution of Bottiaeans).°4 According to PE 4.16.7 (citing Porphyrius), the Cretans
used to sacrifice their children to Kronos. Clement of Alexandria (Protreptikos pros Hellenas II
42.5) cites Antikleides on the Lyktians in Crete who sacrifice men to Zeus.“% The story of the
Minotaur may partake of the same tradition. A semigod with the head of a bull, in Near Eastern
fashion, the Minotaur demands that the Athenians send him seven youths and maidens every year,

before Theseus slays him and ends the tribute.°%

Punic sources provide some data regarding the site and mode of presentation for child sacrifice.
Sacred precincts for child sacrifice are known from North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and
possibly at Tyre.2 The precinct at Carthage was an open-air enclosure surrounded by a wall.668
The size of the precinct was, according to the excavator, L. E. Stager, at least 5,000-6,000 square
meters during the fourth and third centuries. The number of urns estimated for the fourth and third
centuries was placed at about 20,000. Both the size of the precinct and the number of urns indicate
that the use of the precinct was not sporadic. Stager demonstrates on the basis of the excavated urns
that the percentage of infant burials did not decrease over time; rather, they increased. In the

seventh- and sixth-century sample of eighty urns, human-only burials constituted 62.5 percent of all
burials (fifty), human plus animal 7.5 percent (six), and animal-only 30 percent (twenty-four). In the
fourth-century sample of fifty urns, human-only burials increased to 88 percent (forty-four), animal
decreased to 10 percent (five), and human plus animal decreased to 2 percent (one). Other scholars,
such as M. Fantar and G. Picard, have argued against Stager”s interpretation of the data.% H.
Benichou-Safar further suggested that ancient witnesses to Carthaginian child-sacrifice represent
anti-Carthaginian propaganda. She also noted irregularities in the rate of children’s burials at
Carthage and proposed that in fact, child sacrifice was rare, a point that would be in keeping with
the literary evidence cited below, in particular Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.44 = 4.6.11). Despite
several issues raised and scholarly demurrals,$?? some level of child sacrifice evidently took place at
Carthage. This is not to preclude the development of additional cultural understandings, such as
“sacrifice” of children as a religious ritual to address infant and child mortality.

Possible information about the mode of presentation of child sacrifice comes from a tower
discovered beneath a mid-fifth- to early-fourth-century Punic necropolis at Pozo Moro, a site near
the Mediterranean coast approximately 125 kilometers southwest of Valencia.Z Parts of a few
panels to the tower survive. One depicts the presentation of a small person or child in a bowl to a
double-headed deity or monster seated on a throne. With the left hand, the monster holds the bowl
bearing the child, whose head and feet are visible. With the right hand, the deity or monster holds
the left hind leg of a pig, lying on its back on a table in front of the monster’s throne. Behind the
table stands a human figure wearing a long fringed tunic or robe. He raises a small bowl in a gesture
of offering. Another figure across from the deity or monster appears to be standing, with right hand
upraised holding a sword with a curved blade and with a head shaped like an animal, perhaps a
horse or a bull. The human figure in the tunic or robe might be a priest, reminiscent of a priest
carrying a child for sacrifice depicted on a stele excavated from the precinct for child sacrifice at
Carthage.2 The second human figure perhaps effects the cutting of the child. The animal shape of
the head may represent a ritual mask, an item known from Carthage, other Punic sites, and on the
Phoenician mainland.°2

The function of some masks apparently was cultic. Cultic masks have been discovered in Late
Bronze Age levels at ancient Emar and Hadidi in Syria and at Dan, Hazor, and Gezer in Israel.°“
The mask at Dan appears on the face of a cult musician, illustrating another cultic use of masks at
this time. In the Iron Age Levant, masks are more common. Masks have been found at Tel Qasile
(twelfth to tenth century), Tel Shera (tenth century), and Hazor (eighth century). From the ninth
century onward, masks along the Phoenician litoral are attested.23 In view of these discoveries, L.
E. Stager®® has suggested following H. Gressman that BH masweh in Exodus 34:33-35,
customarily regarded as a “veil,” is a cultic mask; his suggestion deserves consideration. In the
present form of the text, the masweh does not funtion as a cultic mask, since Moses removes the
masweh when he communes with Yahweh. Indeed, the force of the text is to show Moses’
experience of Yahweh’s presence, since the masweh “horned” (garan), a theophanic expression like
“horns,” garnayim, in Habakkuk 3:4.7 Yet, the passage exhibits some internal tensions, 28 which
might point to an earlier stage of the tradition representing a different view of the masweh compared
to the present form of the text. Two possibilities may be suggested. Either the verb gáran referred
originally to the horns of an animal mask, although they were understood in later tradition as
theophanic language; or the description of the masweh drew on the imagery of the cult mask to form
its theophanous description of the divine presence’s impact on Moses.

Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.44 = 4.6.11 ) describes the royal setting of child sacrifice: “Among
ancient peoples in critically dangerous situations it was customary for the rulers of a city or nation,
rather than lose everyone, to provide the dearest of children as a propitiatory sacrifice to the
avenging deities. The children thus given up were slaughtered according to a secret ritual.” This
description is followed by Kronos” act of child sacrificed.” Before sacrificing his “only son,”
Kronos prepares him “in royal attire" (ten chóran basilikó), perhaps an echo of the sacrificial term
milk. The motif of the “only son” to be sacrificed appears also in Genesis 22:2, and perhaps
yāhîd, “only one,” in Zechariah 12:10b should be understood against this background. The
expression of “only son” is not a literal one, but conveys the high value set on the child. Stager has
suggested on the basis of double interment in urns of baby bones at Carthage that an “only child”
was not literally involved.S8. PE 1.10.33 also relates: “At the occurrence of a fatal plague, Kronos
immolated his only son to his father Ouranos.”%82 Kronos had many other sons according to Philo of
Byblos (PE 1.10.21, 24, 26).

A number of war reliefs dating to New Kingdom Egypt confirm the circumstances of child
sacrifice in the Levant.£% Scenes depicting the Egyptian siege of Canaanite cities include the
sacrifice of children with various cultic personnel in attendance. The depiction of Ashkelon under
siege by Merneptah’s army is perhaps the most dramatic. Four men extend their hands to the sky,
while three women kneel below them. The chief stands before them with a burning brazier in hand,
and before him is a man with a young child. The child’s arms and legs are limp, indicating that the
child is dead. The same offering appears on the left hand side of the scene.

A battle relief of Ramses II at Medinet Habu likewise depicts the lowering of the limp bodies of
two children over the wall. Here two braziers are alight as individuals raise their hands. Ramses II’s
battle against the Asiatic enemies at the city of Dapur, depicted at Abu Simbel, includes a child
depicted on the citadel, next to a woman. To their right, the chief stands holding a brazier, this time
flameless. The child is not dead, perhaps preserving an earlier part of the ritual prior to the child’s
demise.

The temple of Beit el-Wali in Nubia contains another depiction of child sacrifice in the midst of a
battle conducted by Ramses II. It again shows a chief with brazier raised. This time, however, a
woman lowers a child whose limbs are not flexed as in the scene from Medinet Habu, perhaps
indicating that the child is not dead. This scene includes an inscription extolling Baal, probably as
the recipient of the sacrifice. These scenes illustrate the indigenous Canaanite character of the rite
and its specific context in battle.

Late Bronze Age remains from Amman included burned bones of infants, evidence of the cult of
child sacrifice in Transjordan.%% It is indicated in 2 Kings 3:27, 16:3 (//2 Chron. 28:3), 21:6 (//2
Chron. 33:6) and PE 1.10.44 (= 4.6.11 ) that in Moab, Judah, and Phoenicia, child sacrifice was a
form of mlk sacrifice, performed primarily in times of national crisis.$83 The m/k sacrifices were not
confined to royalty in Carthage, although it might be argued that m/k b'| may preserve this
distinctive royal background. According to P. Mosca, mik b ‘I (e.g., KAI 61A:1-2) represents the mlk
sacrifice by nobles or families owning land, as opposed to mik ’dm (e.g., KAI 61B:1-2; 106:1-2;
109:1-2; 110:1), the mlk sacrifice of a commoner.*% If one were to follow the etymology of mlk, it
might be supposed that the m/k perhaps originated either as a Canaanite royal child sacrifice devoted
to the main god of the locality or a sacrifice devoted to the deity considered in the locality as the
king of the pantheon.* The mik "dm might indicate that any hypothetical royal background had
been lost by the time the Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice.

As support for connecting child sacrifice to a god m/k, M. H. Pope and G. C. Heider invoke
Ugaritic attestations to m/k dwelling in Ashtaroth (*ttrt).É As Pope, Heider, and Pardee have
argued, Ugaritic mlk was the name of a god or an epithet of a god, perhaps to be identified with rp 'u
mlk ‘Im in KTU 1.108.1 (Cf. milku in Emar 472:62?; 473:15”).4% Both mik and rp‘u dwell in
Ashtaroth, assuming that 'ttrt and hdr “y in the following lines are place-names and not epithets. 2
The word mik in these passages refers to a god or at least a divine epithet. Even so, this deity may
not pertain to the cult of the dead at Ugarit. Indeed, Ugaritic mlk appears to be unrelated to either
child sacrifice or the Phoenician sacrificial term mlk.®! Although Phoenician mlk‘štrt may be
related to the Ugaritic divine name or epithet, mlk, plus place-name Ashtaroth (‘t#rt),°°? neither
Phoenician milk ‘strt nor Ugaritic mlk occurs in the context of the mlk sacrifice or a child sacrifice
described in any other way. Furthermore, Ugaritic does not attest to either child sacrifice or the
sacrificial term, m/k. For these reasons, Heider’s connection of Ugaritic mlk, the divine name or
epithet, with Phoenician mlk, the sacrificial term, is conjectural.

Nonetheless, the Ugaritic references to mlk bear on the biblical evidence regarding mlk as a title
for the leader of the dead. This name or epithet evidently survives in a handful of biblical passages.
D. Edelman®3 cites Isaiah 8:21; 57:9; Zephaniah 1:5, 8; Amos 5:26 as possible examples. Pope
notes the attestations in Acts 7:43 (citing Amos 5:26 after LXX) and Qur’an 43:77. Like Acts
7:43, Testament of Solomon 26:6 (in manuscript P) refers to Moloch in connection with Rapha,
probably to be traced to Ugaritic rp’u (KTU 1.108.1).2 The connection between Ugaritic mIk and
BH mlk as epithet is possible, but neither appears related to child sacrifice, to judge from the extant
evidence. Indeed, the scholarly confusion between a god “Moloch” and the name of the sacrifice
seems to have biblical roots. In 1 Kings 11:7 the god of the Ammonites is called “Moloch” instead
of Milkom.9?6

BH mlk, whatever its precise background, seems to have been an acceptable practice, at least
during the second half of the monarchy. Like the high places, child sacrifice was known in both

Israel and Moab, and if Jeremiah 7:30-32 and 32:35 are any indication, child sacrifice was practiced
at high places. Child sacrifice and veneration for the dead appear together in two polemics, Psalm
106:34-38 and Isaiah 57:3-13,©7 prompting the question of a possible historical relationship
between the two practices.% Was child sacrifice or veneration for the dead conducted on a regular
basis at high places during the period of the monarchy? In support of such a historical connection,
Albright understood high places etymologically as “pagan graves” or funerary cairns.2 While the
philological part of this interpretation has not met with acceptance,” Albright drew attention to the
relationship between high places and veneration for the dead, based on Ezekiel 43:7 and Job 27:15
(cf. 2 Sam. 18:17-18; Isa. 15:2).

Child sacrifice appears also in condemnations against high places. Was child sacrifice an element
in the religion of the high places? The high places appear throughout the period of the Judges and
monarchy as cultic sites, servicing not only the family and clan, but also the monarchy. The royal
cult, at least in Jerusalem, as at Ugarit and probably Phoenicia, maintained some cult of veneration
for the dead, and the bulk of the record assigns child sacrifice to royal practitioners. The religion of
the clan likewise included veneration for the dead, and at least some of the religious practices
involving the dead were celebrated at the local high places. Child sacrifice likewise belonged to the
traditional religion of high places, assuming the historical veracity of biblical polemics. There is,
however, no historical evidence outside biblical polemic for child sacrifice at the high places.
Indeed, descriptions of child sacrifice in Canaan and Israel specify their largely royal character, as
undertaken in moments of crisis. A city under siege seems to be the most characteristic setting; child
sacrifice was designed to enlist the aid of a god to ward off a threatening army. If this does represent
the customary setting for child sacrifice, then it belonged to urban, royal religion; it was reserved for
special occasions and not part of regular cultic offerings. Given the available sources, the
connection between child sacrifice and high places would not appear to be a general feature of
Israelite religion.

To conclude this chapter’s very brief consideration of Yahwistic cult practices, child sacrifice may
not have been a common religious practice; the biblical and inscriptional records do not indicate
how widespread the practice was. The religion of high places was generally Yahwistic in name and
practice, allowing a wider variety of cultic activity than its critics in the second half of the
monarchy. The religious practices of the high places were fundamentally conservative, preserving
Israel’s ancient religious heritage. Perhaps for this reason, many of these practices belonged also to
the royal cult of Jerusalem. Yet, perhaps because some of these practices were maintained by
Israel’s neighbors, legal and prophetic condemnations rejected these traditional practices of Israel.
In the name of the deity to whom the religion of high places was devoted, its legal and prophetic
critics condemned this part of Israel’s ancient religious inheritance.

CHAPTER 6

The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism

In reconstructing the history of Israelite religion, it is important to neither overemphasize the
importance of deities other than Yahweh nor diminish their significance?! On the one hand, it
would appear that each stage of Israelite religion knew relatively few deities. The deities attested in
Israel appear limited, compared to the pantheons of Ugarit, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. The
Phoenician city-states and the new nation-states of Moab, Ammon, and Edom perhaps reflect a lack
of deities relatively comparable to early Israel.22 In the Judges period, Israelite divinities may have
included Yahweh, El, Baal, and perhaps Asherah as well as the sun, moon, and stars. During the
monarchy, Yahweh, Baal, Astarte, and the sun, moon, and stars were considered deities in Israel,28
Other candidates for Israelite deities are equated by some scholars with these deities; these are
largely attested late in the Judean monarchy. The Queen of Heaven (Jer. 7:18; 44:18-19, 25) was the
title of a goddess, perhaps Astarte, Ishtar (or, a syncretized Astarte-Ishtar) or less likely Anat.24
Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14; cf. Isa. 17:10-11; Dan. 11:37) and Hadad-Rimmon (Zech. 12:11) are
sometimes considered to be manifestations of Baal.” In the case of some other deities identified in
biblical sources, devotion appears to be restricted to a particular area or period. Deities in this
category would include Bethel (Jer. 48:13), perhaps Chemosh ( Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:17), and
milk, the name of a sacrifice except in Isaiah 8:21 and 57:9 (cf. Amos 5:26; Zeph. 1:5, 8).2% It may
be argued that some, if not all, of these deities appeared in Israelite religion during the last century
of the Judean monarchy. In some cases, they may have been borrowed from another culture.
Chemosh belongs to this category. The late appearance of Astarte and Bethel may reflect Phoenician
influence. In Tyrian religion Bethel perhaps developed as an aspect of El into a god. This deity is
attested in the treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal of Tyre, in double-names (AP 7:7; 22:124, 125) and
proper names (AP 2:6-10; 12:9; 18:4, 5; 22:6; 42:8; 55:7) in the Jewish Aramaic papyri from
Elephantine, the Aramaic version of Psalm 20 written in Demotic, and Jeremiah 48:13.97 From
these pieces of evidences, Bethel, like Astarte, may have been a specifically Phoenician import into

Judean religion, an influence reflected in both Jeremiah 48:13 and the Jewish Egyptian evidence.79?

On the other hand, the Israelite evidence should be neither minimized nor ignored. The data
indicates a significant range of religious practice within ancient Israel. As the identification between
El and Yahweh indicates, the cult of Yahweh could be monotheistic and “syncretistic,” to use the
polemical term customarily aimed at Baal worship. There was no opposition to “syncretism” with
El. As the interaction of Baal worship and Yahwistic cult attests, Yahwism could vary from
coexistence or identification with other deities to outright rejection of them. In this case, polytheistic
Yahwism is indicated. The assimilation of El and the asherah symbol into the cult of Yahweh points
to Yahwism's Canaanite heritage. At some early point, Israel perhaps knew a stage of ditheism in
addition to its devotion to Yahweh (possibly reflected in Gen. 49:25). That ditheism and polytheistic
Yahwism were later condemned by monotheistic Yahwists does not indicate that nonmonotheistic
Yahwism necessarily constituted “Canaanite syncretism” or “popular religion,” tainted by Canaanite
practices and therefore non-Yahwistic in character. Rather, the varied forms of Yahwistic cult
reflected Israel’s Canaanite background. Similarly, the asherah, high places, necromancy and other
practices relating to the dead belonged to Israel’s Canaanite heritage, enjoyed Yahwistic sanction in
Israel, but were later condemned in Israel as non- Yahwistic.

The development of Israelite monotheism involved complex features in various periods.
Convergence and differentiation occurred in conjunction with several societal factors that gave them
their formative shape. Some of these factors can be isolated and placed within the context of four
general periods: the period of the Judges (1200-1000); the first half of the monarchy (1000-800); the
second half of the monarchy (800-587); and the Babylonian exile (587-538). Given the large-scale
factors under review, it is difficult to specify their influence during more narrow time periods.

1. The Period of the Judges

The stage of convergence can be dated only along very broad lines, but it would appear to have
belonged to the earliest stages of Israelite literature. This process of convergence continued down
through the monarchy until the powers and imagery of Baal were fully assimilated by Yahweh, and
it anticipates the later development of monolatry. The incorporation of divine attributes into Yahweh
highlights the centrality of Yahweh in Israel’s earliest attested literature. As warrior fighting on
Israel’s behalf, Yahweh exercises power in Judges 5 against powerful peoples and deities. In this
poem Yahweh controls the cosmic bodies (Judg. 5:20), who fight for Israel. Judges 5 also asserts a
distinction between Yahweh and “new gods” (5:8). The emergence of Israel as a people coincides
with the appearance of Yahweh as its central deity. 2° Indeed, Yahweh was “the god of Israel”
(Judg. 5:3, 5) who eventually was identified with El. It is difficult to add more to this picture of
Yahweh’s hegemony at this early stage, but inferences based on data from the period of the
monarchy might be made. For example, older covenantal forms became prominent under the
monarchy." Since the monarchy tended to be conserva-tive in its modications of traditional
religious forms, the royal Davidic covenant probably drew on an older Israelite concept of the
covenantal relationship binding Israel to Yahweh as its main deity.

2. The First Half of the Monarchy

The monarchy was equally a political and religious institution, and under royal influence, religion
combined powerful expressions of state and religious ideology. When the prestige of the national
deity was increased, the prestige of the dynasty in turn was enhanced. The special relationship
between Yahweh and the Davidic dynasty assumed the form of a formal covenantal relationship,
called in 2 Samuel 23:5 an “eternal covenant” (bérit ‘6lam).“! The binding of the deity and the king
in formal relationship ensured divine well-being for the king and people as well as human devotion
to the deity. More specifically, Yahweh ensured national well-being, justice, and fertility (Psalms 2;
72; 89; 110), while the king in turn guaranteed national cult to Yahweh (1 Kings 8; 2 Kings 12).22
The covenantal relationship directly involved the land and the people of Yahweh. Through the king
the people received the blessings provided by Yahweh. The people were also partners in the Davidic
covenant. The partnership between Yahweh and the king and the people is described in 2 Kings
11:17: “And Jehoiada made a covenant between Yahweh and the king and people, that they should
be Yahweh's people; and also between the king and the people:”2% The religious-political
conceptualization of the covenant reached its fullest expression in the Davidic dynastic theology.
The nationalization of the covenantal form exalted Yahweh as the national deity of the united
monarchy. The national hegemony of Yahweh was thereby established for ancient Israel. The
continuing development of treaty language in covenantal literary forms may also be seen as part and
parcel of royal influence. Born of political experience, treaty forms and expressions came to
communicate the relationship between Yahweh and Israel in the law (Exod. 20:3; 22:19; 24:1-
ij

The innovative centralization of national worship was also part of the process leading to
monotheistic Yahwism, as it encouraged a single national deity and devalued local manifestations of
deity. The royal unification of national life — both political and religious — helped to achieve
political and cultic centralization by concentrating and exhibiting power through the capital city and
a relationship with the national deity residing in that city. This development was concomitant with
the development of the monarchy itself. It began with the establishment of the capital city under
David, continued in the religious importance that Jerusalem achieved under Solomon, and
culminated in the religious programs of Hezekiah and Josiah. As P. K. McCarter comments on these
two Davidic kings, “their policies, by unifying the worship of Yahweh, had the effect of unifying the
way in which he was conceived by his worshippers, thus eliminating the earlier theology of local
manifestations.” 72 The religious function was but one dimension in the effects of cultic
centralization. This religious policy held political and economic benefits as well. The role of the
monarchy was both innovative and conservative, reacting to the needs of the developing state. And,
as illustrated by the examples described in the previous chapters, like the monarchy Israelite
monolatry developed out of both adherence to past religious traditions and departure from them, out
of both conservatism and innovation.

As patron deity of the monarchy, Yahweh supported Israel in international conflicts. Divine
power became international in scope, thereby promoting an early form of monolatrous faith. In a
variety of ways, the Elijah-Elisha cycles communicate the scope of Yahweh's power against other
deities, even outside of Israel. Through his prophets Elijah and Elisha, Yahweh works beyond
Israel's borders (1 Kings 17:14; 19:15; 2 Kings 5:1; 8:13).212 The story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5 sets
the stage for an expression that the action and plan of Yahweh extends beyond Israel's national
borders. Naaman is given victory, thanks to Yahweh, and in recognizing this fact, he declares “there
is no God in all the earth but in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15). Political and religious conflict with other
states during the pre-exilic period provided a political context for expressing the sovereignty of
Yahweh over Israel's enemies and thereby “over all the earth” (Ps. 47:2; cf. Pss. 8:1; 24:1; 48:2;
95:4; 97:5; Isa. 6:3).48 This notion of Yahweh’s power over the nations continued into the prophets
of the eighth century and reached full flower with the emergence of Israelite monotheism in the
Exile.

Another historical factor of centralization during the period of the monarchy, significant for the
development of Israelite monolatry, is the role of writing in Israelite society. J. Goody argues that
the rise of writing helped to generate Israelite monolatry.212 While Goody projects this development
to the Mosaic period, his ideas regarding the influence of writing nonetheless merit consideration.
He suggests that the process of writing gives the customs of oral law a more general application and
a more authoritative status within a society. As a result, social norms in written form become
authoritative for a wider audience. In Israel these norms included the notion of monolatry, which
emerged in early legal and prophetic materials. The role of writing in the development of legal
traditions is evident in the period of the monarchy (Jer. 8:7-8; 2 Kings 22:3; 23:24; cf. Hos. 8:12; 1
Chron. 17:7-9; 24:6) and appears explicitly in the postexilic period (Ezra 7:6, 11; Neh. 8:1). Like the
monarchs of other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, Israelite kings maintained written records of
their reigns. Various biblical passages allude to written chronicles, such as “the annals of the kings
of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23; 22:46), “the annals of the kings of Israel-Ephraim” (1 Kings
14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, etc.), and “the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel” (2 Chron. 16:11;
25:26; 27:7; 28:26, etc.). There were also “the records of David” (1 Chron. 29:29), “the book of the
acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41; 2 Chron. 9:29), “the records of the deeds of Rehoboam which had
been written by Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer” (2 Chron. 12:15; cf. 13:22), and a work of
Jehu the son of Hanani that recounted the history of Jehoshaphat’s reign and was incorporated into
“the books of the kings of Israel” (2 Chron. 22:34). The written collections called “the book of the
wars of Yahweh” (Num. 21:14) and “the book of Yashar” (Josh. 10:12; 2 Sam. 1:17) included
material attributed to the premonarchic period and point to transmission of this material during the
monarchy. Pentateuchal traditions attest to the importance of writing for storing legal material, a
role attributed to Moses (Exod. 24:4, 7, 12; Deut. 30:10; 31:24-26) and the priesthood (Num. 5:23-
24). Scribes were used to preserve records by the monarchy (2 Sam. 8:16; 1 Kings 4:3; Prov. 25:1;
cf. Ps. 45:1), the army (2 Kings 25:19; Jer. 52:25; cf. Josh. 18:9; Judg. 8:13-17), and the judicial
administration (Jer. 32:11-14). Similarly, the priesthood had scribes specializing in the storage of
legal material through writing (Jer. 8:7-8; cf. KTU 1.6 VI 54-56; KAI 37 A 15).

The fostering of Baal language, the asherah, and other features served further political and
ideological functions channeled and expressed by royal scribal activity (for example, in the records
of kings, and presumably in their public monuments — though none of the latter are now extant).
The inclusion of such a wide array of religious expressions during the monarchy may reflect
functions of social and political integration. When David used the language of Baal for Yahweh, it
may have served the function of extending divine dominion in order to confirm royal power. When
Ahab and his line sought to promote Baal, it was perhaps to effect religious compatibility and
perhaps to strengthen political ties with his royal relatives in Tyre. The inclusion of the asherah in
the Jerusalem temple was perhaps no more than a conservative cultic preservation of Israel’s ancient
traditions; criticism of it was probably more the innovation. Like the ark,2 the asherah in the
national temple cult tied the cult to Israel’s ancient roots. Necromancy and prophecy competed as
forms of inquiry for information from the divine realm, as the contrast of the two phenomena in
Deuteronomy 18 and Isaiah 8 would suggest. The condemnation of high places was tied to the
question of centralization of cult during the monarchy.

The monarchy played a significant role in encouraging the religious imagery of other deities
within the cult of Yahweh. The examples of the asherah, solar language, necromancy, and feeding
the dead would suggest that the monarchy accepted these traditional religious practices, and during
the period of royal toleration and patronization of these practices, some prophets perhaps accepted
initially a number of these practices. Furthermore, the monarchy was traditional in its preservation
of the asherah, its appropriation of Baal and solar language for Yahweh, and possibly even its
toleration for Baal worship. The issue then is not why the monarchy accepted such practices against
the condemnations of prophetic critics, but why some of the prophets secondarily came to condemn
these practices. For prophets and legal codes, the threat of Baal in the ninth century produced the
initial precedent leading to later condemnation of some other religious features of Israel. In this
struggle the status of Yahweh was seen to be crucially threatened. For this reason prophetic critics
and legal codes opposed the monarchy on these issues and took innovative measures of attacking
traditional devotion to the asherah and the traditional use of Baal and solar language for Yahweh.
This conflict marked a turning point in the development of Israelite religion in creating a precedent
for eliminating from the cult of Yahweh features associated with Baal or other deities. This process
of differentiation reached full force in the next period.

3. The Second Half of the Monarchy

Some features from the preceding era continued even more strongly during the second half of the
monarchy. The international scope of Yahweh’s power expressed in the Elijah-Elisha cycles
appeared as well in prophetic oracles against the nations. The condemnation of the foreign nations
in Amos 1-2 and Isaiah 13-22 was premised on Yahweh’s ability and choice to exercise power over
the neighbors of Israel.“! The differentiation of some religious features from the cult of Yahweh,
such as devotion to the cult of Baal and specific practices associated with the dead, signified a
distinctive change from the previous period. Hosea’s polemic against Israelite devotion to Baal
reflects a strong witness to the differentiation of Yahweh from practices previously seen as
compatible with Yahwism or at least tolerated by Israelites. Jeremiah’s satire on idol making
(Jeremiah 10) contrasts the falsity of other deities with Yahweh, the “true God,” “the living God and
the everlasting King” (v. 10), and anticipates the satires of idols by Second Isaiah during the Exile.
Furthermore, priestly and Deuteronomistic avoidance of anthropomorphic depictions of Yahweh
contributed to the uniqueness of the Israelite deity.

The appearance of some deities in late Judean religion may account for a further element in the
development of monolatry. Some deities, such as Chemosh, patently reflect foreign influence. Other
deities, such as Bethel (Jer. 48:13) and Astarte, seem to reflect late Phoenician influence. This late
development may have laid the basis for further polemic against other deities, such as Baal, who
belonged authentically to Israel’s Canaanite heritage (in distinction to the Phoenician Baal of
Jezebel). Chemosh, Bethel, and Astarte were known as religious imports, and Baal may have been
understood along similar lines. It is precisely in this way that 1 Kings 17-19 presents Baal.

The covenant assumed a greater importance as an expression of Israel’s exclusive relationship
with Yahweh. By the second half of the monarchy, the law (Exodus 32-34) and the prophets (Hos.
6:7; 8:1) communicated the integral duties and blessings exercised by Israel and its deity with
formulas found also in treaties between kings of differing status.22 The development of writing
perhaps went hand in hand with the evolution in the use of covenantal forms for expressing the
human-divine relationship in ancient Israel. Writing became more important for Israelite legal
traditions and prophecy during the second half of the monarchy. Legal material was shaped by its
emergence in written forms, achieving a more authoritative status in Israel by addressing a wider
audience. The two forms of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and the
modeling of Deuteronomy 12-26 after the order and themes of the Ten Commandments, 7? indicate
both the general form and authoritative status that they held in the circles that produced them and
perhaps more widely in Israelite society. The Deuteronomistic narrative concerning the creation of
the Ten Commandments presents them precisely as a written product penned by Yahweh, the divine
scribe (Deut 9:10; 10:2, 4). Deuteronomy 12-26 illustrates how the Ten Commandments, although
general in form, were made relevant for the changing circumstances of Israelite society, and how
writing itself played a role in the growth of the parameters of covenant. Indeed, covenant and
monolatry received elaboration and definition in written forms.

Writing eventually became the main mode of storing the prophetic cycles involving Elijah,
Elisha, and their disciples, and this trend is reflected in prophets of the eighth and sixth centuries
(Isa. 8:19-20; Jeremiah 36; Hab. 2:2). While oral transmission was the older mode of proclaiming
the prophetic message (2 Kings 3:15), oral (Ezek. 33:2) and written forms of prophetic proclamation
coexisted in the second half of the monarchy. Indeed, in the later half of the monarchy, the written
form may have become the more common mode of communicating the prophetic word (Isa. 29:11-
12; cf. 30:11; Jer. 25: 13).24 The rise of writing for both legal and prophetic proclamation and
preservation evidently partook of a wider societal development (cf. Isa. 10:19). Similarly, while
writing in the bureaucracy remained the domain of professionally trained scribes, other bureaucrats
knew how to read (KAI 193:9-12). Wisdom texts also refer to writing (Job 31:35-37). It is difficult
to gauge fully the effect that generating and preserving legal and prophetic texts through writing had
on Israelite society. It would appear that legal and prophetic proclamation gained a wider audience
through writing. In later times, writing was crucial in the efforts of legal and prophetic tradents to

transmit, update, and proclaim the words they received. Therefore, the legal and prophetic criticisms
of the monolatrous cult and proclamation of Yahweh’s hegemony exercised further influence, in part
thanks to writing.

4. The Exile

Texts dating to the Exile or shortly beforehand are the first to attest to unambiguous expressions of
Israelite monotheism. Second Isaiah (Isa. 45:5-7) gave voice to the monotheistic ideal that Yahweh
was the only deity in the cosmos. Not only are the other deities powerless; they are nonexistent.23
Like Jeremiah 10, Second Isaiah (Isa. 40:18-20; 41:6-7; 44:9-20; 46:1-13; 48:3-8) stresses the
uniqueness of Yahweh in marked contrast with the lifeless, empty idols who represent lifeless,
nonexistent deities.° Israelite cult apparently came to grips with devotion rendered to other deities
by Israelites. Down to the Babylonian captivity, Israelite religion tolerated some cults within the
larger framework of the national cult of Yahweh. While some illicit practices persisted into the
Persian period (Isa. 65:3; 66:17),27 these religious phenomena do not appear to have been tolerated
in the central cult of Yahweh.

As in previous periods, during the Babylonian captivity writing continued to play a formative role
in the development of Yahwism. By the end of the monarchy writing became the dominant mode of
generating prophetic texts. Ezekiel was perhaps generated largely as a written work.2% There are a
number of indications of the written composition of Ezekiel. First, its length betrays a written hand.
Ezekiel’s call narrative in chapters 1-3 covers sixtyfive verses, whereas Isaiah's call in chapter 6 is a
brief and succinct thirteen verses. Similarly, single oracles in Ezekiel are quite long. Ezekiel 16 has
sixty-three verses, and both Ezekiel 20 and 23 have forty-nine verses. Second, the written character
of the book is intimated in 2:9-10, where Ezekiel is commanded to eat the scroll bearing the divine
word; it is the “words of lamentation and mourning" that constitute the remainder of the book (cf.
9:11). Third, as an indication of the written character of Ezekiel, R. R. Wilson observes that the
book does not present the prophet orally delivering his words.“ Fourth, although the prose style
generally found in Ezekiel does not prove that it was a written work from its inception, some
features that do not appear regularly in oral speech??? are common. The appearance of such features
would further suggest that Ezekiel originally constituted a written work in the main. Fifth, the book
of Ezekiel developed new forms, in part due to the written mode of producing prophecy. For
instance, Wilson points to the first-person narrative extending throughout the book, a form that has
continuity with eighth-century prophets. Other forms, including the vision of the divine chariot in
chapter 1,2! the tour given by a divine figure in chapters 8 and 40-48,2%2 and the detailed plan in
chapters 40-48, do not appear in prior prophetic tradition. Wilson attributes the rise of written
prophecy reflected in Ezekiel to the geographical distances between Jewish communities of the
sixth century. Between communities separated by great distances prophecy could be communicated
more efficiently in written form.

A similar case might be made for Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) as originally a written work? that
imitates the poetic style of the prophet after whom the book is named. That this is the purpose of the
work may be inferred from the fact that the author(s) of Second Isaiah remains nameless; the
authorship of Second Isaiah was sublimated into the identity of the original prophet. The verbal
forms, known as the “waw consecutive,” that is, the conjunction waw plus either doubling of initial
consonant and imperfect, or the conjunction waw plus perfect, occur less frequently in direct

discourse than in narrative, suggesting that their frequency in Second Isaiah might point to a

written composition. The written works of Ezekiel and Second Isaiah permitted a sustained
reflection on Israel’s history and the nature of the Israelite deity. Out of the process of reflection and

writing arose clear expressions of Israelite monotheism.

New reflections developed out of Israel’s new social circumstances as well as its new political
situation on the international stage from the seventh century on. The loss of family patrimonies due
to economic stress and foreign incursions contribute to the demise of the model of the family for
understanding divinity. With the rise of the individual along with the family as significant units of
social identity (Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18; cf. 33:12-20) came the corresponding notion
on the divine level, namely of a single god responsible for the cosmos. Judah’s reduced status on the
world scene also required new thinking about divinity. Like Marduk, Yahweh became an “empire-
god,” the god of all the nations but in a way that no longer closely tied the political fortunes of

Judah to the status of this god. With the old order of divine king and his human, royal representation

on earth reversed, Yahweh stands alone in the divine realm, with all the other gods as nothing. In

short, the old head-god of monarchic Israel became the Godhead of the universe.2°

5. Israelite Monotheism in Historical Perspective

The historical reconstruction of Israel’s religion that notes the variegated roles of state and popular
religion, the mixture of indigenous and imported religious features, and the complex features of
convergence and differentiation undermines some of the main scholarly views about Israelite
religion in general and Israelite monotheism in particular. Some scholars argue for an early Israelite
monotheism.“ Albright speaks of a Mosaic age of monotheism deriving from the Sinai experience.
H. Gottlieb, M. Smith, B. Lang, and P. K. McCarter note the role of the monarchy in the
development of monotheism. 48 Morton Smith, followed by Lang, stresses the importance of the
development of the “Yahweh-only party” in the ninth century and afterward. Lang especially
emphasizes the “prophetic minority” that provided initial support for this religious posture in the
northern kingdom before its fall and later in the southern kingdom. Many commentators attach great
importance to the Exile“? as the formative period for the emergence of Israelite monotheism.“2
Israel’s position in a foreign land threatened the validity of its religious heritage and the centrality of
Yahweh; the Exile changed the circumstances of national life and therefore altered the definition of
Yahweh’s centrality. The radical circumstances of the Exile issued in a radical redefinition of

Yahweh.

All these views require at least minor modification in view of the evidence presented in the
previous chapters. Monotheism was hardly a feature of Israel’s earliest history. By the same token,
convergence was an early development that anticipates the later emergence of monolatry and
monotheism. The monarchy was one of many formative influences on the development of
monolatry. Furthermore, convergence appeared by the time of the monarchy and continued well into
the monarchy. The “Yahweh-only party” represented a modification of the cult of the national deity
and an important step in the development of monolatry. By the same token, other factors gave
definition and impetus to this religious position. Differentiation gave shape to the form that the
religion of the “Yahweh-only party” assumed in the second half of the monarchy. Furthermore, it is
not clear that this “Yahweh-only party” originated as “a prophetic minority,” to paraphrase the
words of B. Lang. Rather, although prophetic works provide the best witness to the “Yahweh-only”
position, Israelite prophecy was largely dependent on other quarters of society. In other words, the
“Yahweh-only party” may not have developed as a purely prophetic position (cf. Exod. 20:3; 22:19;
2 Sam. 22 [Ps. 18]: 32).4! Finally, the literary expression of monotheism at a relatively late point in
Israel’s history, either in the late monarchy or the Exile, “overwrites” and obscures the long
development involving the earlier phenomenon of monolatry as well as the important roles of
convergence and differentiation.

Some scholars have stressed early Israelite religion as the quintessential period of pure Yahwism.
Following in the footsteps of Albright, G. Mendenhall and J. Bright posit an early pure Yahwism
that was polluted secondarily in the land by the cult of Baal and other idolatry.” In their schemes,
the monarchy was largely a negative influence. There are three major problems with this
characterization of Israelite religion. First, some of the features that Mendenhall and Bright view as
secondary idolatry belonged to Israel’s Canaanite heritage. The cult of Baal, the symbol of the
asherah, the high places, and the cultic practices involving the dead all belonged to Israel’s ancient
past, its Canaanite past. Second, the “purest form of Yahwism” belonged not to an early stage of
Israel’s history but to the late monarchy. Differentiation of the cult of Yahweh did not begin until the
ninth century and appeared in full flower only in the eighth century and afterward. Even this stage
of reform was marked by other religious developments considered idolatrous by later generations;
the cults of the “Queen of Heaven” and “the Tammuz” undermine any idealization of the late
monarchy. The temple idolatry denounced in Ezekiel 8-11 probably constituted the norm rather than
the exception for the final decades of the monarchy. The religious programs of Hezekiah and Josiah
have been claimed as moments of religious purity in Judah, although even these policies had their
political reasons.” The pure form of Yahwism that Mendenhall and Bright envision was perhaps
an ideal achieved rarely, if ever, before the Exile — if even then. Third, the monarchy was not the
villain of Israelite religion that Mendenhall and Bright make it out to be. Indeed, the monarchy

made several religious contributions crucial to the development of monolatry. In short, Mendenhall
and Bright stand much of Israel's religious development on its head.

In the analysis presented in the preceding chapters, the classic problem of monotheism is pushed
back in time. The issue is not one of identifying the earliest instances of monolatry; rather, the old
question of explaining monotheism becomes a new issue of accounting for the phenomenon of
convergence, a stage in Israelite religion older than the appearance of monolatry. Three levels of
development in early Israel bear on convergence. The first reflects Israel's Canaanite heritage;
features in this category include El, Baal, Asherah, and their imagery and titles, and the cultic
practices of the asherah, high places, and devotion to the dead. The second level involves features
that Israel shared with its first-millennium neighbors: the rise of the new national deity, the presence
of a consort goddess, and the small number of attested deities compared with second-millennium
West Semitic cultures. Third, there are characteristics specific to Israelite culture, such as the new
god, Yahweh, the traditions of separate origins and the southern sanctuary, the aniconic requirement,
and decreased anthropomorphism. Any of the features in this third category might be invoked to
help explain convergence. Biblical tradition concerning Israel’s separate religious development
includes aspects of all the items in the third category; it especially stresses the origins of Israel
outside the land, the giving of Law (Torah), and the creation of the covenantal relationship at Mount
Sinai. The features belonging to the third category are the most promising “explanations” currently
known.

Yet appeal to them would be premised on the assumption that these religious elements were
causes, and convergence and monotheism were the effects. The historical relationship lying behind
these items (or others that might be mentioned) is unknown, and how to explain the emergence of
any one of these items is historically problematic for the Iron I period. Significant cultural
continuities and discontinuities of Israel with its Canaanite past and its Iron Age neighbors are
identifiable, but historical causes cannot be clarified further at this stage of investigation. The
development lying behind Israelite monotheism becomes impossible to trace back to the point of
ancient Israel’s historical appearance ca. 1200.

Though the reasons for Israelite “convergence” are not clear, the complex paths from
convergence to monolatry and monotheism can be followed. The development of Israelite
monolatry and monotheism involved both an “evolution” and a “revolution” in religious
conceptualization, to use D. L. Petersen’s categories.“4 It was an “evolution” in two respects.
Monolatry grew out of an early, limited Israelite polytheism that was not strictly discontinuous with
that of its Iron Age neighbors. Furthermore, adherence to one deity was a changing reality within
the periods of the Judges and the monarchy in Israel. While evolutionary in character, Israelite
monolatry was also “revolutionary” in a number of respects. The process of differentiation and the
eventual displacement of Baal from Israel’s national cult distinguished Israel’s religion from the
religions of its neighbors. Furthermore, as P. Machinist has observed,” one feature clearly
distinguishing Israel from its neighbors was its apologetic claim of religious difference. Israelite
insistence on a single deity eventually distinguished Israel from the surrounding cultures, as far as
textual data indicate.

CHAPTER 7

Postscript: Portraits of Yahweh

1. Processes Leading to Divine Portraiture in Israel

The development toward monotheism in Israel involved complex processes of convergence and
differentiation of deities. The convergence of other deities, or at least their characteristics, toward
Yahweh involved no single pattern. Polemic, for example, was directed against Baal, and to a lesser
extent, asherah and the sun. Polemic was not only a negative factor in these cases, but involved a
positive process at work as well, namely, the attribution of the positive characteristics of other
deities to Yahweh. In some instances, polemic involved direct criticism of other deities, such as
Baal, or cultic items, such as the asherah (2 Kings 21:7; 23:4), the asherim (2 Kings 23:14), and “the
horses ... dedicated to the sun” and “the chariots of the sun” (2 Kings 23:11). Sometimes polemic
assumed the form of negative depiction, as in the description of the priests bowing down before the
sun in Ezekiel 8:16. Identification of Yahweh and another deity occasionally escaped polemic. Since
El was no longer a religious threat in the first millennium, the positive identification of Yahweh-El
was made without later accusations of idolatry.

This discussion has emphasized the process of addition of other deities or their traits to Yahweh.
Yahweh is given the titles "el or ba “al, or is called “the Sun,” or is attributed their features. The
word addition may also be applied to the incorporation of distinctly different attributes within
Yahweh. Both solar and storm language are attributed to Yahweh in different passages and even
within the same units. Similarly, Yahweh embodies both male and female, both El and Asherah.
Addition is not infrequently accompanied by the feature of paradox. For example, 1 Kings 17-19
dramatizes how Yahweh, while controlling the natural power associated with Baal, transcends it as
well. Yahweh is known in some way in both sun and storm, but at the same time transcends such
manifestations. Where explicit criticism of another deity is involved, as in this case, paradox
functions as a form of polemic. Another use of paradox again involves the application of gender.
While Yahweh embodies the characteristics of mother and father, for example in the parental
experience they convey, Yahweh also transcends the human finiteness inherent in both of them (Ps.
27:10). The paradox of natural manifestation is posed also by the biblical language of “seeing God,”
an experience that was denied at times (Exod. 33:20, 23) and at other times affirmed (Num. 12:8;
Isa. 6:1; Job 42:5; cf. Deut. 34:11; Pss. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3).

A further process underlying the development of convergence and differentiation was the creation
of new contexts for metaphorical expressions that functioned originally in polytheistic settings.
Yahweh is called a “sun” (Ps. 84:12) and described as “rising” like the sun (Deut. 33:2). Although
this solar attribution was thought to have been taken too literally (at least according to Ezek. 8:16),
solar language functioned to convey aspects of Yahweh without reducing Yahweh to being the sun.
In Genesis 1:14, the absorption of solar language works in another direction. In this passage, the sun
is not a deity, but functions as the great light that God (’é/ohim) created and set in the firmament.
Some originally polytheistic motifs were changed into forms deemed compatible with monotheistic
Yahwism. One dramatic example of this alteration is the female figure of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9.
In addition to her other components, she perhaps included some features of Asherah. The
representation of the divine presence as “glory” (kabód) or “name” (Sem) constituted alternate
strategies for expressing divine presence.2% The background to the divine “name” and “face” of
God is to be found precisely in the Canaanite milieu of the other deities. While these terms in both
Canaanite-Phoenician and Israelite contexts expressed divine qualities, in Israel these terms
lessened the anthropomorphism that characterized older descriptions of the deity more in continuity
with Israel’s Canaanite heritage.

Finally, the biblical record involves a shift in temporal perspective regarding Yahweh and other
deities. Although features of El and Baal have been convincingly recognized in Yahweh, some
biblical passages regard other deities as originally alien to Israel and Yahweh (Exod. 34:11-16;
Deut. 32:12, 39; Ezekiel 28). Ezekiel 20:25-26 provides a different type of explanation for the
otherwise forbidden practice of child sacrifice. In this passage Yahweh describes child sacrifice as
divine punishment: “Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which
they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all
their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am Yahweh.”

Similarly, Jeremiah 7:21-22 dismisses the divine authority for child sacrifice by denying that
Yahweh ever commanded it. For the biblical record, the order of history is not theologically
tantamount to the order of reality. Hence, understanding Yahweh involves a theological
interpretation of history that, according to the biblical perspective, permits the nature of Yahweh to
be disclosed more fully. While drawing on older tradition and claiming basis in Israel’s earliest
history, later prophetic and legal materials reflect a sustained reflection concerning Yahweh,
supplementing and correcting older incomplete renderings of the divine.

These processes represent various aspects of convergence and differentiation. Convergence and
differentiation influenced the depictions of the divine found in the Hebrew Bible. The inclusion of
solar language for Yahweh, the acceptance of the symbol of the asherah and the cultic sites of the
high places, and numerous practices pertaining or relating to the dead, long escaped priestly,
Deuteronomistic, and prophetic criticism. The old body of Israelite literature assigns solar language
to Yahweh. From the reconstruction offered in chapter 3, the symbol of the asherah was assimilated
into the Yahwistic cult. Convergence apparently accounts for the numerous descriptions of Yahweh
with imagery associated in Canaanite tradition with El, Baal, and other deities. Differentiation of
Yahweh from some descriptions traditional for these deities is also evident. Some traditional
religious features were eventually condemned as non-Yahwistic and ultimately passed from the
national cult of Yahweh. Some aspects, including the Yahweh-El identification and the attribution of
Baal’s characteristics to Yahweh, continued to be acceptable. Within monotheistic Yahwism the
figure of Yahweh absorbed some features of other deities without acceptance of their separate
reality.

2. The Absence of Some Canaanite Divine Roles in the Biblical Record

The traits of Canaanite deities are attested in biblical tradition in widely varying degrees. Some
roles were applied frequently to Yahweh, others less so, and some not at all. A number of
descriptions of El and Baal are highly conspicuous in some biblical depictions of Yahweh. Other
features describing the di-vine playa a lesser role. For example, the divine council in biblical texts
shows little sign of the magnificent feasting of the Ugaritic pantheon, although traces of divine
feasting survive in the biblical record (Exod. 24:11 ). Descriptions of the heavenly temple barely
materialize in biblical tradition (Exod. 24:10; Ezek. 1:26), although 1 Enoch 14 and the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice from Qumran indicate the availability of this material in Israelite tradition. 2
Indeed, intertestamental apocalypses and the book of Revelation attest strongly to the persistence of
mythic material. Various biblical books, especially Ezekiel, provide glimpses of this material and
indicate knowledge of these traditions.

Other divine roles known from the Ugaritic literature are conspicuously absent from both the
biblical record and extrabiblical Jewish literature. Yahweh does not appear like El, the drunken
carouser (KTU 1.114) and sexual partner of goddesses (KTU 1.23.30-51; cf. 1.4 V 38-39), or Baal,
the dying god (KTU 1.5 V-1.6 V) and voracious sexual partner of animals (KTU 1.5 V 18-22) and
perhaps of his sister, Anat (KTU 1.11.1-5). Yahweh is unlike Anat, who feasts on the flesh of her
military victims (KTU 1.3 II), or the sun-goddess in her netherworldly role (KTU 1.6 110-18, VI
42-53; cf. 1.161.8f.).2 Of these images, only the language of feasting on the enemies is attested in
biblical literature, and even this imagery appears indirectly with respect to Yahweh. Moreover, the
feature of divine feasting in biblical tradition hardly conveys the rich and vivid character of divine
imagery expressed in the Ugaritic narratives. The Canaanite descriptions render divine behavior in
human or natural terms differing from biblical renderings of Yahweh in primarily two areas, sex and
death. El, Baal, and perhaps Anat engage in sexual activity, and Baal, Anat, and the sun-deity are
intimately involved in the processes of death and return to life. In Ugaritic texts, sexual relations
belong to the divine life. Death, both in its manifestation in the figure of Mot and in descriptions of
its effects, is part of the natural and divine realm, on par with Baal, the source of life and well-being
in the cosmos. Although some of this mythic material appears in biblical tradition in various settings
and in fractured forms, the language of death applied to Yahweh is rare and largely metaphorical.
Yahweh does not die, even figuratively. Yahweh does not have a consort according to any biblical
source; nor does he engage in divine sex.

Establishing reasons for the selection and distribution of divine roles in biblical texts is
exceptionally difficult>! A few suggestions may be offered, but only most tentatively; this
exploration bears the character of the possible but not verifiable. First, numerous critics of Israelite
cult during the latter half of the monarchy, including the priestly and Deuteronomistic quarters,
rejected the religious practices of Israel’s neighbors that both Israel and its neighbors shared as a
result of their common Canaanite heritage. High places constitute an especially pertinent example,
since criticisms of foreign peoples sometimes include mockery of this religious practice.

Second, as noted in chapter 3, depiction of Yahweh became decreasingly anthropomorphic to
some extent, especially in priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions.42 These same traditions
dominated the production and transmis-sion of biblical texts from the late eighth century to the sixth
century. The phase of differentiation in the second half of the monarchy and the Exile coincided
with the period of greatest literary production in ancient Israel, and it is precisely this phase of
Israelite literary production where the priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions have so strongly left
their mark. In contrast, textual material dating to the Iron I period is sparse, and the full range of
religious phenomena from this period is lacking in the extant record. 3 Indeed, biblical tradition
alludes in passing to now-lost textual sources of the Iron I period (Num. 21:14; 21:27; Josh. 10:12; 2
Sam. 1:17). It would appear that the priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions heavily influenced the
divine roles exhibited in the Bible, at least for those roles that survive into postexilic Jewish
literature, including the divine council (Zechariah 3; Daniel 7) and the heavenly temple (1 Enoch
14; the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice).

Third, a further process seems to underlie the omission of some roles. Divine language of sex and
death did not survive at all, although polytheism in a Yahwistic context sporadically persisted.
These omissions might be explained by appeal to the influence of the priestly and Deuteronomistic
traditions. Given the priestly insistence on the impurity of death and sexual relations, it is difficult to
resist the suggestion that the presentation of Yahweh generally as sexless and unrelated to the realm
of death was produced precisely by a priesthood whose central notions of holiness involved
separation from the realms of impurity, specifically sexual relations and death. For the priesthood
there were several levels of cultic purity, and the deity represented the epitome of this hierarchy.
Priests are restricted in their selection of spouses and also in their contact with the dead (Lev. 21:7),
compared to non-priests (Num. 11-19; 31:19). The chief priest is even more restricted than the
priesthood in general (Lev. 21:11-13). Unlike other priests, the chief priest is associated with the
holiness of the divine sanctuary. Holier than the holy of holies, the deity constituted the fullest
manifestation of holiness, one totally removed from the realms of sexuality and death. Given the
development of this concept within priestly circles, it might be understood as an inner-Israelite
development and not necessarily an original feature of Yahweh. This rendering of Yahweh may
have been aimed not only against other views of Yahweh or other deities in ancient Israel to whom
sexual relations and death were attributed, but perhaps specifically against family religious practices
and life, which included contact with the deceased ancestors and belief in a household religion
headed by a divine couple (as modelled in their own family life).74

The absence of divine sex and death from the biblical record may belong to a reaction that
predates the priestly and Deuteronomistic production of biblical texts. Given the historical viability
of Baal language down to the ninth century and the virulent opposition to Baal from the ninth
century and afterward, the divine roles involving sex and death and polytheism perhaps ceased early
in some priestly and Deuteronomistic quarters. Perhaps in the areas of divine sex and death, reduced
anthroporphism constituted a significant factor. Reduced anthropomorphism apparently belonged to
an earlier stage of Israelite religion and continued through the Exile. It may therefore help to explain
the general reduction of the goddess in Israelite religion and the omission of the roles of sex and
death for Yahweh. In any case, thanks to the evidence that Genesis 49 provides, it may be surmised
that polytheism was part of the religion of Israel prior to the tenth century, and in the case of the
“Queen of Heaven” and perhaps other minor deities, afterward as well. Similarly, divine roles in sex
and death could have belonged to the repertoire of descriptions for Yahweh or other deities
worshiped by Israelites prior to the tenth century, and possibly afterward, although no evidence
known at present supports this reconstruction.

In conclusion, the cults of the major deities developed differently in Israel and its neighbors.
Religious developments specific to Israel played a role in the processes underlying the selection and
shaping of the main divine roles and images for Yahweh from Israel’s Near Eastern heritage,
especially manifest in Canaanite and Mesopotamian texts and traditions.2> Like other Near Eastern
deities, Yahweh provided fertility in the cosmos, acted as ruler of the world, and showed the care of
a divine parent. Yet, unlike other deities who combined these functions (such as Marduk), Yahweh
exercised a variety of roles, even sometimes conflicting ones, to the detriment of the cults of other
deities. Yahweh sometimes embodied apparently contradictory capacities. Yahweh was seen as
manifest in nature and beyond nature; Yahweh was sometimes anthropomorphic and yet beyond
humanity. Imaged in the human person (Gen. 1:26-28) yet only partially imaginable (Isa. 55:8-9),
Yahweh was a deity sufficiently powerful both to protect (Psalm 48; Isa. 31:4) and punish Israel
(Jer. 9:8-9). Yahweh was equally a personal deity (Deut. 4:7), whose pain matched Israel’s pain (MT
Jer. 9:9 [E 10]; cf. 12:7-13). Yahweh consoled Israel (Isa. 40:2), answered Israel (Exod. 3:7; Ps.
99:8; Hos. 2:23-25 [E 21-23]), and loved Israel (Hos. 2:16 [E 14]; Job 37:13). Yahweh’s qualities
were often expressed in terms largely shaped by the characteristics of other deities belonging to
ancient Israel’s heritage that Israel rejected in the course of time.

Indexes of Texts

BIBLICAL CITATIONS

Genesis

1:26
1:26-28

2-3

3:22

3:24

14:18
14:19
16:13
17:1
19:3
19:13
20:17
21:33
22
22:2

27:28

32:21

32:31

32:32
33:10
34

35:4
35:11
36:35-36
36:38
36:38-39
36:39
38:21-22
43:14
46:1
48:3

49

49:18
49:24
49:24-25
49:25

49:25-26

Exodus

3:1

4:22
6:2-3
6:15
6:23
10:25
10:28-29
12:13
14:2

14:9

15

15:11

15:13

15:17

15:18

17:1-7

18:12

19:11

19:18

19:20

20

20:3

22:19

23:16

23:20-21

23:23-24

24:1-11

24:4

24:7

24:9-11

24:10

24:11

24:12

24:16

25:22

26-40

32-34

32-33

32:18

32:34

33:13 (LXX Vat.)
33:14
33:15
33:16
33:20
33:23
34:5
34:6
34:11-16
34:13
34:22
34:29

34:33-35

Leviticus

4-5
6:15-16
16
17:11

18:21

19:26
19:26-28
20:2-5
20:3

20:6-7

21:10
21:11-13
21:17
22:25

26

26:12

26:30

Numbers

3:9

5:23-24
6:24-26
6:25
7:89
8:19
10:29-30
11-19
11:12
11:17

11:25

12:5
12:8
12:10
12:13
16:22
20:2-13
21:14
21:27
21:33
22-24
23:34
24:4
24:8
24:16

25:1-5

30
31:19
32:38
33:7

35:25-28

Deuteronomy

1:4
3:1
3:9

4:3

4:7

4:15-16

4:23

10:2
10:4
12-26
12
12:1-14
12:2
12:3
12:18
12:31
13:17
14:1
16:21
16:22
18
18:9-22
18:10
18:10-11
23:18 (E 17)
24:16
26:14
28:4

28:18

28:51

29:16

30:10

31:14

31:15

31:24-26

32

32:4

32:6

32:6-7

32:8

32:8-9

32:12

32:13

32:15

32:16

32:16-17

32:17

32:18

32:21

32:24

32:30

32:31

32:34

32:37

32:37-38

32:39

32:42

32:42-43

32:43

33

33:2

33:10
33:13
33:26
33:26-27

34:11

Joshua

5:13-15
6:25

9:1

9:15
10:12
10:12-13
11:3
11:17
12:4
12:7
12:8
13:5
13:12
13:31
14:13-14
15:59
16:10
17:7 (LXX Vat.)
17:12-13
18:9
19:38
20:6

21:12

21:18
22:22
24:25-26

24:26-27

Judges

1:27
1:27-35

2-3

3:3
3:7
4-5

4:7

5:4
5:4-5
5:5
5:6
5:8

5:20

6-7

6:22
6:25
6:25-26
6:25-30

6:25-32

9:46
10:6
10:16
11:30
11:39
14:20
14:22
18:30
20:33
20:44-46

21:25

1 Samuel

1:21

1:22

2:2

2:10

4:21

9:12-13

12:10

12:11

12:18

13:17

14:15

16:3-5

17:55

20:6

27:10

28

28:13

30:29

31:10

2 Samuel

2-4
5:20
7:6
8:16
11:21
12:16
12:30
13:23
16:7
17:11
18:17-18
18:18
21

22
22:23
23:182, 83
23:1-7
23:3-4
23:4
23:5
23:27
23:31

24:16

1 Kings

2:26

3:4-5

4:3

11:7-8

11:14-21

11:33

11:41

12:25

12:28-30

12:28-31

13:2

13:32

13:33

14:15

14:19

14:23

14:25

14:29

16:14

16:20

16:30-33

16:31

16:32

16:33

17-19

17:1-17

17:14

18

18:3

18:4-5

18:19

18:22

18:25

18:26

18:27

18:40

18:41-46

19

19:1

19:10

19:11

19:15

19:18

20:2-4

20:13-15

20:22

20:23

20:28

21:5-6

21:20

21:25-26

21:27-29

22:19
22:40
22:45
22:46
23:11

23:20

2 Kings

3:27

4:42

9:7
9:14-15
9:34-37
10
10:10-27
10:19
10:21-27
10:24
10:34

11

11:17

11:18

12

12:11

12:19

13:5-6

13:6

13:8

13:12

13:20-21

13:21

14:15

14:24

14:28

15:6

15:11

15:12

15:15

15:21

15:26

15:31

15:36

16:3

16:19

17:6

17:7-23

17:10

17:11

17:16

17:16-17

17:31

18:18

18:22

18:25

18:26

18:28

18:29

19:23

20:5

20:8

20:20

21

21:17

22:3

22:4

22:8

22:47

23

23:8-9

23:11

23:13

23:14

23:15

23:17

23:19
23:24
23:28

25:19

1 Chronicles

2:43

5:5
5:8

5:23

6:22
7:8
8-9

8:24

8:34
8:45

9:2

9:40
11:28
12:3
12:6
14:11
17:7-9

20:2

21:15
24:6
26:7
27:1
27:2
27:25

27:28

29:29

2 Chronicles

9:29
12:15

13

13:10
13:12
13:22
14:4

15:16
16:11
16:12
17:19
22:8

22:34
24:18
25:26

27:7

30:1-12

31

33:19
34:9

35:18

Ezra

2:23

2:43

8:20

Nehemiah

3:1

3:20

3:26

1:27

7:46
7:60
7:72
8:1

10:29

11:21
11:32
13:24

13:28

Tobit

1:5 (LXX Vat., Alex.)
4:17
13:6

13:10

Judith

16:23

Esther

2:2

Job

1-2
3:8
24

7:12

9:7

20:3
26:7-8
26:11
26:11-13
26:13
27:15
28

28:11
28:14
28:22
31:26-28
31:35-37
33:26
36:14
36:26
37:13
37:21
38:8
38:10
38:11
38:16-17
38:25-27
38:28-29
38:34-38
40:25 (E 41:1)

42:5

Psalms

2:4

4:7
8:1
10:12

10:16

16

16:3
16:6

17

17:15
17:18

18
18:4-18
18:5-6
18:6-19
18:8-17
18:8-19
18:11
18:14
18:14-16 (E 13-15)
18:16
18:17-18
18:29-45
19
19:4-6
19:7-10
20

20:3

22:9-10
22:30 (MT)
24:1
26:8
27
27:4
27:5
27:6
27:10
27:13
29
29:1
29:1-2
29:2
29:3-9
29:5-6
31:17
34:6
36:7
42-43
42
42:3
44-49
44:21

44:24

46:5
47:2
47:3
47:5
47:9

48

50:1
50:1-3
50:12-14
50:14
51:21
57:1
57:3
58:11
61:4

63

65

65:6-9 (E 5-8)
65:8 (E 7)
65:9 (E 8)
65:12 (E 11)
67:2

68

68:24
68:30
68:35

72

72:5-6

72:8

73:11

74:13

74:13-14

76:3

77:11

77:19

78:17

78:35

78:48

78:56

78:65

79:1

80:4

80:8

80:20

82:1

82:6

83:19

84-85

84

84:9

84:10

84:12

86:9-19

86:15

87-88

87

87:1

87:4

89

89:5-8
89:5-18
89:6

89:7
89:9-10
89:10 (E 9)
89:11 (E 10)
89:16
89:19-37
89:26
89:38-51
90:8

90:10

91:10
92:2

93

96-99

96:10

97:1

97:1-6

97:5

97:11 (LXX)
98:1-2

99:1

99:2

99:8

102:28
103:21
104
104:1-4
104:3
104:4
104:9
104:19
104:26
106:28
106:34-38
106:37
106:40-47
107:11
107:20
110
110:6
119:25
132:2
132:3
132:4
132:5

146:10

Proverbs

1-9
2:26

3:13-18

8:29

11:30

26:10

29:18

Ecclesiastes

1:2

1:5

Song of Songs

1:1

Wisdom of Solomon

7-8

14:3

18:15

Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus)

24:12-17
30:18
38:16-17
46:20
47:22
48:13
49:7
50:7

51:12

Isaiah

1:4
1:29-30
2:8
4:2

4:5

6:3
6:8

7:20

8:19-20
8:20-21
8:20-22
8:20-23
8:21
8:21-22
10:10
10:19

10:30

11:4-5
11:10
11:15
13-22

14:13

16:12
17:7
17:8
17:8 (LXX)
17:10-11
17:12-14
19:3
19:18
22:12
22:15-17
25:8

27

27:1

27:9
27:9 (LXX)
28:7
28:15
28:16-20
28:18
29:4
29:11-12
30:7
30:10
30:11
30:19
30:22
30:27
30:27-33
31:4
31:7
33:20-22
34:2
34:6-7
35:2
36:4
36:11
36:13
40-55
40:2
40:4
40:5
40:6
40:14
40:18-20

40:19

40:22

40:24

40:28

41:6-7

41:11

42:6

42:10-15

42:10-17

42:14

42:15

42:16

42:19

42:25

43:12

43:14

43:28

44:4

44:9-20

44:12

44:13

44:14

44:15

45:3

45:4

45:5-7

45:10-11

45:22

46:1-13

46:3

46:4

46:13

47:6

47:7

47:10

48:3-8

48:15

48:18

48:19

49:2

49:3

49:6

49:7

49:13

49:14

49:15

49:21

49:22

49:23

49:26

50:6

51:2

51:9-11

51:10

51:13

51:15

51:16

51:23

52:8

54:12
54:16
55:8-9
55:10
55:11
55:13
56:5
57:3-13
57:6
57:6-7
57:9
57:15
58:8
59:9
59:10
59:15-19
60:1
60:16

61:3

63:16
64:7 (E 8)

65

66:3
66:5
66:9
66:13
66:17
66:18

66:18-21

Jeremiah

1:1

2:23
2:23-28
2:26-28
2:27]
2:28
2:28 (LXX)
3:3

3:4
3:19
3:24
5:22
5:24

6:9

7:21-22

7:29

10

10:10

10:11-16

10:13

11:13

11:17

11:21

11:23

12:7

12:7-13

12:16

14:4

14:22

16

16:5-9

16:26

17:2

19:5

22:7

23:13

23:18

23:22
23:27
25:13
27:9
29:27
31:9
31:20
31:29-30
32:7-9
32:11-14
32:25
32:39
33:15
36

41:5

44
44:15-28
44:15-30
44:17-25
44:18-19
44:25
46:10
48:13
48:35
49:1
49:3
49:9
51:16
51:34

52:25

Lamentations

Baruch

4:1

4:24

Ezekiel

1-3

1:26

2:9-10

3:26-27
6:2
6:3-4

6:5

10
10:3
10:5
12:10
12:23
13:7

13:17-23

14:4

16

16:20

16:21

16:36

18

18:15

20

20:25-26

20:28

20:32

23

23:39

24:27

25:13

28

28:12-19

32:2

32:11-32

33:2

33:12-10

33:22

37:26-27

38-39

39:11

39:14

39:19

40-48

42:14

43:7-9

47:1-12

Daniel

4:20
4:21
4:22

4:29

5:18
5:21
6:3
6:5
6:7

6:26

7:3
7:6

7:7

7:9-14

7:22

7:25

11:37

Hosea

2

2:10 (E 8)

2:15 (E 13)

2:16 (E 14)

2:18 (E 16)
2:18-19 (E 16-17)
2:19 (E 17)

2:20

2:21 (E 19)
2:21-23

2:23-24 (E 21-22)
2:23-25 (E 21-23)
2:25 (E 23)

3:4

8:1
8:5
8:12

9:4

13:12
13:14
13:14-15
14:2-10
14:9 (E 8)
14:9-10

14:10 (E 9)

Joel

2:1-11

3:9-17

3:13

3:16

3:19-21

4 (E)

4:9-14

4:9-15 (E 3:9-15)
4:11-13 (E 3:11-13)
4:13

4:16 (E 3:16)

4:17 (E 3:17)

4:18 (E 3:18)

Amos

1-2
1:2

1:3-2:16

4:7
5:8
5:25

5:26

9:6

9:12

Obadiah

Jonah

1:4

4:8

Micah

1:16
1:7
5:10-15

5:11-13 (E 12-14)

Habakkuk

2:2
2:5

2:18-19

3:3
3:3-15
3:4
3:5

3:6

Zephaniah

1:3

1:4

1:5
1:7

1:8

Haggai

2:4

Zechariah

3:1
3:7
3:8
6:11
6:12
9:15 (LXX)
10:1
12:3-4
12:8
12:10
12:11
14:2
14:4
14:5
14:8

14:16-17

Malachi

1:6

3:20

Matthew

12:27

15:22

Mark

3:22

7:26

Luke

11:18

Acts

7:43

Revelation

2:7

4:5

14:14-20
17:3
19:11-16

19:15

2 Baruch

29:4-8

85:12

1 Enoch

14
14:11

26

2 Esdras

1:28
2:42-48
4:7-8
5:25-26
6:49
8:20
13:1-4

13:35

Letter of Jeremiah

6:60

Odes of Solomon

INTERTESTAMENTAL TEXTS

29:4

Pseudo-Philo

Testament of Moses

10:6

Testament of Solomon

26:6

POST-BIBLICAL JEWISH REFERENCES

Dead Sea Scrolls

1QIsa?

4Q403 fragment 1, col. 2, line 9
4Q405, fragments

20-21-22, col. 2,

line 10

Songs of the Sabbath

Sacrifice

Mishnah

* Abodah Zarah 3:5

* Abodah Zarah 3:7

* Abodah Zarah 3:9

* Abodah Zarah 3:10
Baba Batra 3:1
Me‘ilah 3:8

*Orlah 1:7

*Orlah 1:8

Sebi‘it 2:9

Sukkah 3:1-3

Terumot 10:11

Talmud

Baba Batra 75b

Berakot 18b 170

Pesahim 25a
Qiddushin 29b
Shabbat 152a-b
Sotah 34b 170
Leviticus Rabbah
22:10

Midrash Tehillim91

TEXTS FROM UGARIT

CTA

1.4
2.4

3.2
3.3.15-28
3.3(D).35-39
3.5.45

4.1.8

4.4

5.1

6.1

14.4.198
14.4.202
15.3

17

29

29.12

33

64

116n.8

KTU

1.1 IV 14

1.1V5

1.1 V 18

1.21

1.2117-19

1.2119

1.2133

1.2 133-35

1.2135

1.2136

1.2 137-38

1.2139

1.2 1114

1.2 III 5

1.2IV

1.2 IV 3-4

1.2 IV 8

1.2 IV 10

1.2 IV 13

1.2 IV 17

1.2 IV 26

1.2 IV 27

1.2 IV 27-34

1.2 IV 28

1.31

1.3 ፲]

1.3 IL 3-30

1.3 I1 18

1.3 III 13-31

1.3 IIT 18-31

1.3 111 29-31

1.3 111 34-35

1.3 11 38-39

1.3 III 38-42

1.3 III 43

1.3 III 46

1.3 III 46-47

1.3 IV 7-20

1.3 V 36

13V6

13V8

1.3 V 14

1.3V 17

1.3 V 31

1.3 V 35-36

1.3 V 37

1.3 V 40

1.3-4

1.414-5

1.417

1.4113

1.4121

1.411 19

1.4 11 25-26

1.4 HI 14

1.4 IV 20-22

1.4 IV 20-26

1.4 IV 21-22

1.4 IV 24

1.4 IV 27-39

1.4 IV31

1.4 IV 40

1.4 IV 42

1.4 IV 49

1.4 IV 51

1.4 IV-V 36

1.4 V 36

14V1

1.4 3-4

1.4 V 6-9

1.4 V 38-39

1.4 V-VII

1.4 VI

1.4 VII 8-9

1.4 VII 21

1.4 VII 25-31

1.4 VII 29

1.4 VII 29-35

1.4 VII 38-39

1.4 VII 42

1.4 VII 44

1.4 VIII-1.6

1.5-6

1.511

1.511-5

1.513

1.51112

1.5 III 2-11

1.5 IV 4-5

1.5 V 203

1.5 V 6-9

1.5 V 6.11

1.5 V 7-9

1.5 V 18-22

1.5 V-1.6 V 203

1.5 VI 1*

1.5 VI 11-22

1.5 VI 23-25

1.5 VI31-1.6 15

1.61145

1.6 I 6-8

1.6 I 8-9

1.6 I 10-18

1.6111

1.6113

1.6134

1.6139-41

1.6144

1.6145

1.6146

1.6147

1.6153

1.6 1124

1.6127

1.6 III 100

1.6 III 6-7

1.6 III 12-13

1.6 VI 12

1.6 VI 12-13

1.6 VI 42-53

1.6 VI 45-49

1.6 VI 54-56

1.6 VI 55-56

1.10 II 6

1.11.1-5

1.14 1 19-20

1.14 IV 35

1.14 IV 39

1.15 1139

1.15116

1.15 III 203

1.15 IH 2-4

1.15 III 13-15

1.15 III 26

1.151V 6

1.15 TV 8

1.15 IV 17

1.15 IV 19

1.16 136

1.16 137-38

1.16 138

1.16 II 6

1.16 III 8

1.16 V

1.16 V-VI

1.16 VI 56

1.17 I-II 39

1.17116

1.17127

1.17 I 27-28

1.17128

1.17 131-32

1.17 V 47-48

1.17 V 49

1.17 VI 48

1.18 IV 27

1.19 1 42-46

1.19 IV 53

1.20-22

1.22110

1.23

1.23.13

1.23.16

1.23.23-24

1.23.28

1.23.30-51

1.23.37-52

1.23.54

1.23-61

1.28.14-15

1.40

1.43.13

1.46.1

1.47

1.47.6-11

1.61.40

1.82.1-3

1.91.2

1.91.11

1.100.2-3

1.100.41

1.101.1-4

1.105.9

1.105.15

1.106.2

1.107.17

1.108

1.108.1

1.108.1-2

1.108.5

1.108.7

1.109

1.112.18-20

1.112.21

1.114

1.114.18-19

1.115.10

1.116.1

1.118

1.118.5-10

1.118.11

1.119.26-29

1.119.26-38

1.119.30

1.119.34-36

1.124

1.124.4

1.127

1.127.2

1.142

1.148

1.148.3-4

1.148.11-12

1.161

1.161.8-9

1.161.10

1.161.19

1.168.9

2.10

2.15.3

2.16.6-10

2.23.21-24

2.31.39

2.31.60

2.43.7
2.43.9
3.1
3.1.24-25
3.1.26
4.29.1
4.29.3
4.36
4.38.1
4.38.2
4.68.72
4.68.73
4.91.1
4.93.1

4.360.3

RS

16.144.9
16.144.12-13
16.394.60
17.33 obv. 4'
18.22.4'
20.24
20.24.20
25.318

1929.17

1986/2235.17

AP

2:6-10

7:7

22:6
22:108
22:124
22:125
42:8

44:3

Armenian Ahigar

1:4
Bethsaida stele

Beth-Shan stele

CIS

14:5
44:1
46:1-2

57:1-2

OTHER NEAR EASTERN INSCRIPTIONS

59:1

60:1

108

Deir ‘Alla

inscriptions

Delos inscription

no. 1719

EA

68:4
73:3-4
74:2-30
84:33
147:13-15
147:59-60
155:6
155:47
249-50
256

258

266:12-15

Elephantine

papyri

El-Khadr arrowhead

Elkunirsa

narrative

Emar

32:35
52:2
99:15
109:46
158:6
279:25
282:16
319:8
373:88'
373.92”
379:5'
381:15
382:16
472:58'
472:62’
473:9
473:15'

474:21”

Enuma Elish

1:101-2
1:102
1:157
4:39-40
4:46-47

6:127

7:119

11:128-29

Gudea Cylinder B

V152
Injirli inscription

Ishtar medallion

4:3
4:4-5
4:5
4:7
5:1
6:2
7:3
985
10:2
10:3
10:7
10:9-10
10:15
12:3-4

12:4

14-16
14:9

14:14
14:15

14:18

14:22

15

17:1

19:4

26 A I1:19-111:2
26 A III 12-13
26 A III 18
26 A III 19
26 CIV:2-5
27:12

33:3

34:1

34:4

35:1-3

37 A188

43:6

43:10-11

44:2

50

51 obv. 5-6
53

54:1

57

61A:1-2

61A:3-4

61B:1-2

64:1

67:1-2

69

69:3

69:5

69:7

69:12

69:14

74:5

74:10

86:1

87:1

94:1

97:1

98:1-2

99:1-2

102:1

103:1-2

105:1

106:1-2

107:1-4

109:1-2

110:1

120:2

137:1

145:12-13

155:1

156

159:8

164:1

167:1-2

175:2

176:2-3

181:3

181:5

181:9

181:12

181:13

181:14

181:16-18

181:17

181:18

181:19

181:30

181:32

181:33

193:9-12

213:14

213:16

214

214:11

214:16

214:21

222 B123

251
256

277:1

Khirbet el-Qóm

inscriptions

Kilamuwa orthostat

Kuntillet ‘Ajriid

inscriptions

Lachish ewer

Lachish letters

3, 4,5, 6

Mari texts
Merneptah stele
Mesha stele

Moabite stele

Papyrus Amherst Egyptian no. 63

column V 84
column VII 103
column XI 84
column XI,
lines70

column84

Proto-Sinaitic

inscription62

Qubur el-Walaydah

inscription

RES

289:2

290:3

302 B:5

367

1519b

1208

Samaria ostraca
1:7

2:4

2:7

12:2-3

37:3

41:1

Sefire inscription
Taanach letter
Tel Dan plaques

plaque B

Tell Fakhariyeh

inscription

Tel Miqneh (Ekron)

inscriptions

CLASSICAL

Achilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon

3.6

Apollodorus, The Library

1.7-9
Clement of Alexandria, Protreptikos pros Hellenas

III 42.5

De Dea Syria

para. 4
para. 6
Diodorus Siculus,
Library of History

XX 14:4-7

Herodotus, History

1.105

3.5

Josephus, Antiquities

7.174

8.144-49
8.146

15.253

Josephus, Contra Apionem

1.118
1.123
1.157
2.112-14

2.157

Lydus, De mensibus

Macrobius, Saturnalia

1.17
1.17.66-67
1.21.1
1.23.10

1.23.19

Philo of Byblos (PE)

1.10.7

1.10.10
1.10.15
1.10.16
1.10.20
1.10.21

1.10.24

1.10.26
1.10.27
1.10.29
1.10.31
1.10.32
1.10.33
1.10.36
1.10.44
4.6.11

4.16.7

Pistis Sophia

66

Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride

para. 15, 3

Plutarch, Theseus

16

Pseudo-Philo

Strabo, Geography

16.2.7

Index of Authors

Abu-Rabia, A.
Ackerman, S.
Adler, A.
Aharoni, Y.
Ahituv, S.
Ahlstróm, G. W.
Ahn, G.

Albertz, R.
Albright, W. F.
Alessandrino, C.
Alexander, R. L.
Almagro-Gorbea, M.
Alpert Nakhai, B. See Nakhai, B. A.
Alt, A.

Alter, R.
Altmann, A.
Amiet, P.
Andersen, F. I.
Anderson, B. W.
Anderson, G. A.
Angerstorfer, A.
Ap-Thomas, D. R.
Archi, A.

Arfa, M.

Arnaud, D.
Assman, J.
Astour, M. C.
Attridge, H. W.
Auffret, P.
Aufrecht, W. E.

Augustin, M.

Auld, A. G.
Avigad, N.
Avishur, Y.

Avi-Yonah, M.

Baines, J.
Baldacci, M.
Balentine, S. E.
Barkay, G.
Barnett, R. W.
Barr, J.

Barré, M. L.
Barrick, W. B.
Barth, H.
Barthélemy, D.
Barton, D.
Barton, G. A.
Barton, J.
Batto, B.
Baudissen, W. F.
Beck, M.

Beck, P.
Becking, B.
Beckman, G.
Beek, G. van
Beek, O. van
Beit-Arieh, I.
Bell, C.
Benichou-Safar, H.
Bennett, C. M.
Ben-Tor, A.
Ben-Zvi, E.
Berlinerblau, J.
Bernett, M.
Berthier, A.

Betlyon, J. W.

Beuken, W. A. M.
Biezais, H.
Biggs, I. D. G.
Binger

Biran, A.

Bird, P. A.

Bittel, K.

Blake, F.

Blau, J.
Bloch-Smith, E. M.
Blomquist, T. H.
Blum, E.

Boadt, L.

Bohl, F. M. Th.
Boling, R. G.
Bonnet, C.
Bordreuil, P.
Borger, R.
Bornecque, H.
Bostróm, G.
Bottéro, J.
Botterweck, G. J.
Bowden, J. 5.
Brandfon, F.
Brett, M.
Brettler, M.
Briggs, C. A.
Briggs, E. G.
Bright, J.

Bron, F.

Brooke, G. J.

Brown, M. L.
Brown, S.
Brueggemann, W.
Brunnow, R. E.
Bunimovitz, S.
Buren, E. D. van
Burnett, J. S.

Burroughs, W. J.

Callaway, J.
Callaway, R.
Callendar, D. E., Jr.
Camp, C.
Campbell, E. F., Jr.
Canaan, T.
Caquot, A.
Carr, D. M.
Carroll, R. P.
Carruthers, M.
Carter, E.
Carter, J. B.
Cassuto, U.
Catastini, A.
Ceresko, A. R.
Chakraborty, R.
Charlier, R.
Charpin, D.
Chazan, R.
Childs, B. S.
Choquet, C.
Ciasca, A.
Civil, M.
Clements. M.
Clements, R. E.
Clifford, R. J.
Cogan, M.
Cohen, M. E.
Collins, J. J.
Conroy, C.

Conzelmann, H.

Coogan, M. D.
Cook, G. A.
Cooper, A.
Coote, R. B.
Cornelius
Cornell, S.
Craigie, P. C.
Crenshaw, J. L.
Cresson, B.
Cross, F. M.
Cryer, F. H.
Culley, R. C.
Cullican, W.
Cunchillos, J.-L.
Curtis, A. H. W.

Curtis, E. L.

Dahood, M.
Danby, H.
Darr, K. P.
Davies, P. V.
Davis, N. Z.
Day, J.

Day, P. L.
Dayyagi-Mendels, M.
Delavault, B.
Delcor, M.
Dever, W. G.
Dhorme, E.
Dietrich, M.
Dietrich, W.
Diewart, D. A.
Dijkstra, M.

Di Lella, A. A.
Di Vito, R. A.
Donner, H.
Dörrfuss, E. M.
Dossin, G.
Dothan, M.
Dothan, T.
Draffkorn Kilmer, A. E.
Duncan, J. A.
Durand, J. M.
Durkheim, E.

Dyke, B.

Edelman, D. V.
Efird, J. M.
Eichrodt, W.
Eissfeldt, O.
Emberling, G.
Emerton, J. A.
Engelkern, K.
Engle, J. R.
Eph'al.
Epstein, I.
Eslinger, L.
Esse, D.

Exum, J. C.

Falkenstein, A.
Fantar, M.
Faust, A.
Fauth, W.
Feldman, E.
Fensham, F. C.
Ferrera, A. J.
Finet, A.
Finkelstein, I.

Finkelstein, J. J.

Fischer, D. H.
Fishbane, M.
Fisher, L.

Fitzgerald, A.
Fitzmyer, J. A.
Fleming, D.
Fleming, D. E.
Fleming, O.
Floss, J. P.
Floyd, M. H.
Fohrer, G.
Forsyth, N.
Fowler, J. D.
Frankfort, H.
Frazer, J. G.
Freedman, D. N.
Freedman, M. A.
Frendo, A.
Frerichs, E. S.
Frevel, C.

Friedman, R. E.

Friedrich, G.
Fuentes Estañol, M. J.

Fulco

Gaál, E.
Galling, K.
Garbini, G.
Garfinkel, Y.
Garr, W. R.
Gaselee, W.
Gaster, T. H.
Geer, R. M.
Gehman, H. S.
Gelb, I. J.
Geller, M. J.
Geller, S. A.
Gerstenberger, E. S.
Gianto

Gibson, A.
Gibson, J. C. L.
Gilula, M.
Ginsberg, H. L.
Gitin, S.
Giveon, R.
Glock, A. E.
Gnuse, R. K.
Godley, A. D.
Goedicke, H.
Goldstein, B.
Gonen, R.
Good, R. M.
Goody, J.
Gordon, C. H.
Gorelick, L.

Górg, M.

Gottlieb, H.
Gottwald, N. K.
Gray, J.

Green, A.
Green, A. R. W.
Green, D.
Greenberg, M.
Greenfield, J. C.
Greenstein, E. L.
Gressman, H.
Griffiths, J. G.
Gröndahl, ፻.
Gruber, M. I.
Gruenwald, I.
Gubel, E.
Gunkel, H.
Gunneweg, J.
Giiterbock, H. G.
Gutmann, J.

Guttmann, J.

Hackett, J. A.
Hadley, J. M.
Halevi, B.
Hallo, W. W.
Halpern, B.
Hamilton, A.
Hamilton, G. J.
Handy, L. K.
Hanhart, R.
Hanson, P. D.
Haran, M.
Harden, D.
Harrelson, W.
Harris, M.
Harth, D.
Hartmann, B.
Hasel, M.
Haupt, P.
Hayes, C. E.
Hayes, J. H.
Healey, J. F.
Heider, G. C.
Held, M.
Heltzer, M.
Hendel, R. S.
Hennessey, J. B.
Hentrich, T.
Herdner, A.
Herion, G. A.
Herrman, S.

Herrmann, W.

Herzog, Z.
Hess, R.

Hess, R. J.
Hess, R. S.
Hestrin, R.
Hezser, C.
Hiebert, T.

Hill, G. F.
Hillers, D. R.
Himmelfarb, M.
Hobbes, T.
Hoffman, H. D.
Hoffner, H. A.
Hofner, M.
Hoftijzer, J.
Holladay, J. S.
Holladay, J. S., Jr.
Holladay, W. L.
Holland, T. A.
Hollis, F. J.
Holloway, S. W.
Hooke, S. H.
Horst, P. W. van der
Horwitz, W. J.
Hübner, U.
Huehnergard, J.
Huffmon, H. B.
Hurowitz, V.
Hurvitz, A.

Hyatt, J. P.

Ibrahim, M. M.
Irwin, W. H.

Ishida, T.

Jackson, K.
Jacobsen, T.
Jasper, D.
Jastrow, M.
Jirku, A.
Jobling, D.
Johnson, A. R.
Jolly, K. L.
Jones, H. L.
Jongeling, K.
Jong Ellis, M. de

Júngling, H. W.

Kaiser, O.
Kapelrud, A. S.
Kaufman, I. T.
Kaufman, S.
Kaufmann, Y.
Keel, O.
Kempinski, A.
Kennedy, C.
Kenyon, K.
Kermode, E
Kimchi, David
Kinet, D.

King, P. J.
Kitchen, K. A.
Klein, H.
Kletter, R.
Kloner, A.
Kloos, C.
Klopfenstein, M. A.
Knapp, A. B.
Knauf, E. A.
Knight, D. A.
Knohl, I.
Knutson, F. B.
Koch, K.
Koenen, K.
Kooij, G. van der
Korpel, M. C. A.
Kort, A.
Kottsieper, I.

Kraus, H. J.

Kruger, H. A. J.
Kubac, V.
Kuschke, A.

Kutscher, E. Y.

Labat, R.
Laberge, L.
Lachman, E.
Lafont, B.
Lagrange, M. J.
Lahiri, A. K.
Lambert, W. G.
Landsberger, B.
Lane, E.

Lang, B.

Lange, A.
Langlamet, F.
LaRocca-Pitts, E. C.
Laroche, E.
Launey, M.
Lawton, R.
Lehmann, R. G.
Lemaire, A.
Lemche, N. P.
Lemke, W. E.
Levenson, J. D.
Levine, B. A.
Levinson, B. M.
Lewis, T. J.

L Heureux, C. E.
Lichtenberger, H.
Lichtenstein, M.
Lichtheim, M.
Lieberman, S.
Lipiński, E.

Livingstone, A.

Lloyd, J. B.
Loewenstamm, S. E.
Loisy, A.

Long, B. O.

Loretz, O.

Luria, B. Z.

Lust, J.

Maass, F.
McAlpine, T.
McBride, S. D.
McBride, S. D., Jr.
McCarter, P. K.
McCarthy, D. J.
MacDonald, J.
Machinist, P.
Macholz, C.
McKane, W.
McKay, B.
McKay, J. W.
McKenzie, S. L.
McLaughlin, J. L.
Madsen, A. A.
Maier, C.

Maier, W A.
Maisler, B.. Same as Mazar, B.
Malamat, A.
Mann, T. W.
Marchetti, P.
Marcus, R.
Margalit, B.
Margolin, R.
Marks, J. H.
Master, D. M.
Mathias, G.
Mathias, V. T.
May, H. G.

Mayer-Opificius, R.

Mayes, A. D. H.

Mays, J. L.

Mazar, A.

Mazar, B.. Same as Maisler, B.
Mazar, E.

Meek, T. J.
Meinhardt, J.
Menard, J. E.
Mendenhall, G.
Merlo, P.

Meshel, Z.
Mettinger, T. N. D.
Meyer, R.

Meyers, C.
Meyers, C. L.
Meyers, E. M.
Michele Daviau, P. M.
Miles, J. A., Jr.
Milgrom, J.

Milik, J. T.
Millard, A. R.
Miller, J. M.
Miller, J. W.
Miller, P. D.
Miller, P. D., Jr.
Mitchell, T. C.
Montgomery, J. A.
Moon-Kang, S.
Moor, J. C. de
Moorey, R.

Moran, W. L.

Morgenstern, J.

Morrill, W. T.
Morris, 5.
Morschauer, S.
Mosca, P. G.
Moscati, S.
Mowinckel, S.
Mrozek, A.
Muenchow, C. A.
Mullen, E. T.
Müller, H. P.
Müller, M.

Muntingh, L. M.

Muth, R. F.

Na’aman, N.
Nakhai, B. A.
Naveh, J.
Negbi, O.
Neusner, J.
Niccacci, A.
Nicholson, E. W.
Niditch, S. A.
Niehr, H.
Nielsen, F. A. J.
Niemeyer, H. G.
Nims, D. F.
Norin, S. I. L.
Norton, S. L.

Noth, M.

Nougayrol, J.

Oberman, H. A.
O’Connor, M.
Oded, B.

Oden, R. A., Jr.
O’ Flaherty, W.
Oldenburg, U.
Olmstead, A. T.
Olmo Lete, G. del
Olyan, S. M.
Oppenheim, A. L.
Oren, E. D.
Orlinsky, H. M.
Oman, T.
Oswald, H. C.

Overholt, T. W.

Page, H. R., Jr.
Pardee, D.
Parker, S. B.
Parpola, S.
Parr, P.
Patrick, D.
Paul, S.

Paul, S. M.
Peckham, B.
Peli, P.
Perlman, A. L.
Person, R. F., Jr.
Petersen, D. L.
Pettinato, G.
Petty

Picard, C. G.
Picard, G.
Picard, G. C.
Pitard, W. T.
Pomponio, F.
Pope, M. H.
Porten, B.
Porter, B. N.
Posener, G.
Posner, R.
Pritchard, J. B.
Propp, W. H. C.
Propp, W. L.
Puech, E.
Pury, A. de

Pusch, E.

Quispel, G.

Rad, G. von
Rainey, A. F.
Ratner, R.
Ratosh, J.
Redford, D. B.
Reed, W. L.
Reichert, A.
Reiner, E.
Rendsburg, G.
Rendtorff, R.
Ribichini, S.
Richter, S.
Richter, W.
Ringgren, H.
Roberts, J. J. M.
Roberts, K. L.
Robertson, D. A.
Robertson Smith, W. See Smith, W. R.
Robinson, A.
Robinson, J. A.
Robinson, J. M.
Rogerson, J. W.
Rollig, W.
Rómheld, D.
Rosen, B.

Ross, J. F.
Rossmann, D. L.
Rouseel, P.
Rowe, A.
Rowlands, C.

Rowley, H. H.

Rummel, S.
Russel, J.

Rylaarsdam, J. C.

Sanders, J. A.
Sanders, P.
Sanmartin, J.
Santucci, J. A.
Saracino, F.
Sarna, N.

Sass, B.

Saviv, A.
Schaeffer, C. F. A.
Schafer-Lichtenberger, C.
Schart, A.
Schenker, A.
Schiffman, L. H.
Schley, D. G.
Schloen, J. D.
Schmidt, B. B.
Schmidt, H.
Schmidt, W. H.
Schmitt, J. J.
Schniedewind, W. M.
Schoors, A.
Schorch, S.
Schottroff, W.
Schroer, S.
Schulman, A. R.
Schunk, K. D.
Seebass, H.
Seeligman, I. L.
Seitz, C. R.
Sellheim, R.

Seyrig, H.

Shanks, H.
Shea, W. H.
Shepley, J.
Sheppard, G. T.
Shury, W. D.
Signer, M.
Sigrist, M.
Silberman, N.
Skehan, P. K.
Skehan, P. W.
Skjeggestad, M.
Smend, R.
Smith, G. A.
Smith, H. R.
Smith, J. Z.
Smith, Mark S.
Smith, Morton
Smith, W. R.
Snell, D. C.
Snidjers, L. A.
Soggin, J. A.
Sollberger, E.
Sommer, B. D.
Sommerfeld, W.
Spalinger, A.
Spenser, J. R.
Sperling, D.
Spickard, P.
Spieckermann, H.
Spina, F. A.

Spronk, K.

Stade, B.
Stadelmann, R.
Stager. E.
Stáhli, H. ፻
Steck, O. H.
Stegemann, E. W.
Steiner, R. C.
Stern, E.
Steuenagel, C.
Stolz, F.

Stone, M. E.
Strugnell, J.
Stulz, F.

Sznycer, M.

Tadmor, H.
Talmon, S.
Tappy, R.
Tarragon, J. M. de
Tawil, H.

Taylor, J. G.
Teixidor, J.
Thackeray, H. St.J.
Thompson, J. A.
Thompson, T. L.
Tigay, J. H.
Timm, S.
Tomback, R. S.
Toombs, L.
Toorn, K. van der
Tournay, R.

Tov, E.

Trible, P.
Trinkaus, C.
Tromp, N.
Tropper, J.
Tsevat, M.

Tubb, J. N.
Tucker, G. M.

Tuttle, G.

Uehlinger, C.
Ullendorff, E.
Ulrich, E. C.

Ussishkin, D.

Vanel, A.
Vattioni, F.
Vaughan, A. G.
Vaux, R. de
Vawter, B.
Velankar, H. D.
Virolleaud
Votto, S.
Vovelle, P. M.
Vreizen, T. C.

Vrijhof, H.

Waardenburg, J.
Wakeman, M. K.
Waldman, N. M.
Wallace, H. N.
Wallenfells, R.
Walls, N. H.
Ward, W. W
Watson, W. G. E.
Watts, J. W.
Weber, M.
Weider, A. A.
Weigl, M.
Weinfeld, M.
Weippert, M.
Weisberg, D. B.
Weiser, A.
Weiss, K. M.
Weitzman, M. P.
Weitzman, S.
Wellhausen, J.
Wenning, R.
Wensinck, A. J.
Westenholz, J. G.
Westermann, C.
Wevers, J. W.
Whiting, R. M.
Wiggins, S. A.
Wildberger, H.
Williams, P. H., Jr.
Williams-Forte, E.

Willis, J.

Wilson, J. A.
Wilson, K.
Wilson, R. R.
Winter, N. H.
Winter, U.
Wiseman. J.
Wolff, H. W
Worschech, U.
Wright. P.
Wright, G. E.
Wyatt, N.

Wyk, K. van

Xella, A. P.

Yadin, Y.
Yamauchi, E. M.
Yee, G. A.
Yerushalmi, Y. H.
Young, G. D.

Younger, K. L., Jr.

Zadok, R.
Zebulun, U.
Zeitlin. M.
Zenger, E.
Zevit, Z.
Zijl, P. J. van
Zimmerli, W.

Zuckerman, B.

General Index

Abdi-Ashirta
Absalom

Abu Simbel

Adad

Addu. See also Haddu
Adonis (god)
Adonis (river)
Adrammelek

Afqa River

Ahab

Ahaz

Ahaziah

“Ain Dara
Akhenaten

Aleppo

Amar-Sin
Ammi-ditana
Ammon

Amun

Amun-Re
Anammelek

Anat; and Baal; and martial imagery; name of; and Yahweh
Anat-Bethel
anthropomorphism
Antit

Apollo

Aghat

Arad

Armenian Ahigar
Asa

Ashdod

Asherah (goddess); and Astarte; and Baal; and El; during the Judges period; during the monarchy;
and Yahweh

asherah (symbol); assimilated into Israelite religion; and Asherah; biblical references to; forbidden;
functions of; and Kuntillet “Ajrúd evidence; and Wisdom

asherim
Ashin-Bethel
Ashkelon
Ashtar-Chemosh
Ashtaroth (place)
Assur (god)

Assur (place)
Assyria

Assyrian King List A
Astarte; and Asherah; biblical references to; and El
Athaliah

Athena

Athens

Athirat

Athtar

Baal: and Anat; and Asherah; bull imagery of; cult of; and El; during Judges period; as Phoenician
deity; rejection of, by Israelites; as storm-god; as warrior; worship of, by Israelites; and Yahweh
passim

Baalbek

Baal cycle

Baal Gad (place)
Baal Haddu (god)
Baal Hamon (place)
Baal Hazor (place)
Baal Hermon (god)
Baal Hermon (place)
Baal Lebanon (god)
Baal Lebanon (place)
Baal-Malaga (god)
Baal Ma‘on (place)
Baal-Mot (god)

Baal of Carmel (god)
Baal of Tyre (god)
Baal Peor (god)

Baal Peor (place)
Baal Perazim (place)
Baal-Saphon (god)
Baal II of Tyre

Baal Shalisha (place)
Baal Shamem (god)
Baal Tamar (place)
Babylon

Balaam

Beersheba

Beit el-Wali
Belsephon

Bethel (god)

Bethel (place)
Bethlehem
Bethsaida stele
Beth-Shan; stele
Boghazköi

Byblos

Caleb

Carmel

Carthage

Chemosh

Constantine

convergence of divine imagery. See also differentiation; syncretism
Crete

Cyprus

Dan (place)

Dan (tribe)

Dapur

David

dead, practices relating to the
death

Deborah

Deir “Alla inscriptions

Delos inscription

Delphi

Demarous

Deuteronomistic History
Deuteronomistic tradition
differentiation. See also convergence
Dir

divination. See also necromancy

Dodona, oracular cult of

Ebla

Edfu

Edom

Edrei (Deraa)

El: and Asherah; and Astarte; and Baal; bull imagery of; and convergence with other deities; father
imagery of; as head of pantheon; during Judges periodpassim; titles of; and Yahweh

El-Bethel
Elephantine papyri
Elijah

Elijah-Elisha cycles
Elisha

El-Khadr arrowhead
Elkunirsa narrative and myth
“Elohist” tradition
Elos

Emar

Endor

Enlil

Ephraim

Epirus

Esarhaddon, treaty of
Eshbaal
Eshem-Bethel
Eshmun

Ethbaal

Euphrates

female imagery and Yahweh

Gatumdug

Gaza

Gershom

Gezer

Gezer Calendar
Gibeon

Gideon

Giloh

Gudea

Gudea Cylinder B

Guelma (Algeria)

Hadad
Hadad-Rimmon
Haddu. See also Addu
Hadidi
Hammurapi
Hanat

Hathor

Hatti

Hattusilis
Hazor

Hazzi, Mount
Hebron

Hepher
Herakles
Hexapla
Hezekiah

high places
Hiram

Horus

Hosea

individuation. See also differentiation
Indra

Injirli inscription

Ishbaal

Ishboshet

Ishkur

Ishtar

Ishtar medallion

Isis

Istanu

Ittobaal

Jacob

Jebel el-Aqra*

Jehoiada

Jehoshaphat

Jehu

Jeroboam I

Jerubbaal

Jerubbeshet

Jerusalem; royal cults of; temple of
Jezebel

Jonathan (son of Gershom)
Jonathan (son of Saul)
Joram

Josiah

Judges period; and Asherah; and Baal; and Elpassim

Karatepe

Keret

Ketubim

Khirbet Afqa
Khirbet el-Q6m
Kilamuwa orthostat
Kition

Kronos

Kuntillet *Ajrüd

Lachish
Lachish ewer
Lagash
Lamashtu
Lapethos
Lebanon
Leptis Magna
Leviathan

Lipit-Ishtar

Ma'sub

Malta
Manasseh
Marduk

Mari

marzeah feast
masks, cultic
Mattan
Medinet Habu
Megiddo
Melqart
Mephiboshet
Meribbaal
Merneptah
Merneptah stele
Mesha stele
Meskene
Midian
Milkom
Minet el-Bheida
Minotaur
Moab

Moabite stele

Moloch
monolatry
monotheism
Moses

Mot
Munbaqa

Mursilis

Naaman

Nebmare Amenophi III
necromancy. See also divination
New Year festival

Ningirsu

Ninurta

Niqmaddu I

Niqmaddu II

Niqmepa

Nubia

Nur-Sin

official religion. See also royal religion; state religion
Ophrah
Origen
Ortheia

Ouranos

Panammu

Panammu inscriptions

Paran

Pentateuch. See also Torah
Pentateuchal traditions. See also Deuteronomistic tradition; priestly tradition
Philadelphia

polytheism

popular religion

Pozo Moro

priestly tradition
Proto-Sinaitic inscription
Pyrgi

Qaws

Qitmit

Qubur el-Walaydah inscription

Queen of Heaven

Rahab
Ramat Rahel
Ramses 1]
Ramses HI
Rapha

Ras Shamra
Rephaim
Resheph
Rhodes
Rib-Addi
Rig Veda

royal religion. See also official religion; state religion

sacrifice; child sacrifice; m/k; and sacrificial language
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

Sahl ben Mazli’ah

Samaria

Samuel

Sapan

Sapan, Mount

Saphon, Mount

Sardinia

Sarepta

Saul

Sefire inscription

Sennacherib

Shamash

Shamgar ben Anat

Shechem; god of

Shishak list

Sicily

Sidon

Sinai

Sirbonian Sea

solar imagery: and worship. See also under Yahweh
Solomon

sources, biblical. See Deuteronomistic tradition; “Elohist” tradition; priestly tradition
Sousse (Hadrametum)

Spain

Sparta

state religion. See also official religion; royal religion
Suhu

syncretism. See also convergence

Taanach; letter; stand
Tabernacles, feast of
Talmiyanu

Tammuz

Tannit

Teiman

Tel Asmar seal

Tel Dan plaques

Tel Ekalte

Tell el-*Ajjúl

Tell Fakhariyeh inscription
Tel Miqneh (Ekron) inscriptions
Tel Qasile

Tel Shera

temple, heavenly

Terqa

Thariyelli

Tiamat

Tirzah

Torah. See also Pentateuch
Tukulti-Ninurta II

Typhon

Tyre

Ullikumi

"Umm el-*Amed

Ur-Nammu

Valencia

Venus

Vrtra

Wadi Hammamat
Wen-Amun tale
Wisdom, female figure of

writing, importance of

Yahdun-Lim

Yahweh: bull imagery of; cult practices associated with; and gender language; and meaning of
name; and monotheism; and solar imagery; and understanding of Canaanite deities

Yahweh in Israel’s history: Exile; Jerusalem temple tradition; Judges period; monarchy
Yahweh and other gods: Anat; Asherah; Baal passim; convergence of; El

Yamm

Yanoam

Yarim-lim

Yashub- Yahad

Yehud

Zahra

Zeus

Zeus Heliopolis
Zimri-Lim

Zion

1

For references, see below pp. xxv, xxx.

2

For references, see below pp. 172-73.
3

For the Bethsaida stele, see below p. 84 n. 64; for the medallion, see T. Ornan, “Ištar as Depicted on
Finds from Israel,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar
with G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 235-52.

4

For references, see the section 3 below entitled “Asherah/asherah Revisited” and chapter 3.
3

Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanaische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990).

6

Keel and Uehlinger, Göttinen, Götter und Gottessymbole, Questiones disputatae 134 (Freiburg:

Herder, 1992).
7

Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. T. Trapp

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).
8

Herrmann, Von Gott und den Göttern: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament, BZAW 259
(Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999).

2
Wyatt, Serving the Gods (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

10

Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001).

11

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W.
van der Horst (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1995).

12

Del Olmo Lete, La Religión Cananea según la liturgia de Ugarit: Estudio textuel, Aula Orientalis
Supplementa 3 (Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1992).

13

Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, trans. W. G. E.
Watson (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1999).

14

Del Olmo Lete, ed., Semitas Occidentales (Emar, Ugarit, Hebreaos, Fenicios, Arameos, Arabes
preislamicos), with contributions by D. Arnaud, G. del Olmo Lete, J. Teixidor, and F. Bron,
Mitología y Religion del Oriente Antiguo II/2 (Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1995).

15

Niehr, Religionen in Israels Umwelt: Einführung in die nordwestsemitischen Religionen Syrien-
Palästinas, Ergänzungsband 5 zum Alten Testament, Die Neue Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter,
1998). Other important works include: J.-L. Cunchillos, Manual de Estudios Ugariticos (Madrid:
CSIC, 1992); W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, eds., Handbook for Ugaritic Studies, HdO 1/39
(Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999). See also M. Dijkstra, “Semitic Worship at Serabit el-Khadem

(Sinai),” ZAH 10 (1997): 89-97, which announces 1. D. G. Biggs and M. Dijkstra, Corpus of Proto-
Sinaitic Inscriptions (CPSI) (AOAT 41; in preparation).

16

Pomponio and Xella, Les dieux d'Ebla: Étude analytique des divinités éblaites à l'époque des
archives royales du IIIe millénaire, AOAT 245 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1997).

ir

Lipinski, Dieux et deesses de l’univers phenicien et punique, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 64,
Studia Phoenicia 14 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters & Departement Oosterse Studies, 1995).

18

Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, Das Alte Testament Deutsch
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).

19

Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. J. Bowden, OTL
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).

20

Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox,
2000).

2

Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London/ New York:
Continuum, 2001).

22

See also F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore
/London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998).

23

These include, by year: Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext
der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, ed. W. Dietrich and M. A.
Klopfenstein, OBO 139 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1994); Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and
the Bible. Manchester, September 1992, ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey, UBL 11
(Minster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994); The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D. V.
Edelman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays Presented
in Honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson, ed. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd, UBL 12
(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996); “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament
und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebenjahres mit
Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, ed. M. Dietrich and 1. Kottsieper, AOAT 250
(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998); The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious
Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel, OTS XLII
(Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999); and B. Becking et al., Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient
Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah, The Biblical Seminar (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001).
24

Niehr, Der höchste Gott: Alttestamenticher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrischkannanäischer
Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr, BZAW 190 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Cf. the
response of K. Engelkern, “BA’AL SAMEM: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit der monographie von
H. Niehr,” ZAW 108 (1996): 233-48, 391-407. An English summary of Niehr’s work can be found
in his essay, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-
Historical Aspects,” in The Triumph of Elohim, ed. D. V. Edelman, 45-72.

25

De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: Roots of Israelite Monotheism, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91 (Leuven: Peeters/University Press, 1990; 2d ed., 1997).

26

Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Power and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition,
UBL 13 (Minster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996).

27

Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, JSOTSup 241 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997).

28

Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
(Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001). For further discussion of how this book relates to
The Early History of God, see the end of this preface.

22

Aspects of Monotheism: How God Is One, ed. H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt (Washington, DC:
Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997).

30

For example, by year: W. H. Schmidt, ““Jahwe und ...’ : Anmerkungen zur sog. Monotheismus-
Debatte,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf
Rendtorff zum 65. Geburstag, ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 435-47; M. Weippert, “Synkretismus und Monotheismus,” in Kultur
und Konflikt, ed. J. Assman and D. Harth, Edition Suhrkamp N.S. 612 (Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp, 1990), 143-79; G. Ahn, “‘Monotheismus’ — ‘Polytheismus’: Grenzen und
Möglichkeiten einer Klassifikation von Gottesvorstellungen,” in Mesopotamica — Ugaritica —
Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992, ed.
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, AOAT (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1993), 1-24; T. L. Thompson, “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive
Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine,” in The Triumph of Elohim, ed. D. V. Edelman, 107-24; A.
Schenker, “Le monotheisme israelite: un dieu qui transcende le monde et les dieux,” Biblica 78
(1997): 436-48; W. H. C. Propp, “Monotheism and “Moses”: The Problem of Early Israelite
Religion,” UF 31 (1999): 537-75.

sl

For further listings and discussion, see the review article of O. Loretz, “Religionsgeschichte(n)
Altsyrien-Kanaans und Israel-Judas,” UF 30 (1998): 889-907.

32

See among others, P. Amiet, Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra — Ougarit II: Sceaux-cylindres
en hematitie et pierres diverses, RSO IX (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992); B.
Sass and C. Uehlinger, eds., Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO
125 (Fribourg: Universitátsverlag; Góttingen: Vandenhoeck $ Ruprecht, 1993); 1. Cornelius, The
Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze Age I Periods (c. 1500-1000
BCE), OBO 140 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); and C.
Uehlinger, ed., Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern
Mediterranean (Ist millennium BCE), OBO 175 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Universitatsverlag;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). See also the monumental volume by the late N.
Avigad, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, revised and completed by B. Sass (Jerusalem: The
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/The Israel Exploration Society /The Institute of
Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997).

d

Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, ConBOT 42
(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995).

34

The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the
Ancient Near East, ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21
(Leuven: Peeters, 1997).

33

Lewis, “Divine Images: Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118 (1998): 36-53. See also the essay
of B. B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts,” in The
Triumph of Elohim, ed. D. V. Edelman, 75-105.

36

Na'aman, “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image: Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult
Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-exilic Period,” UF 31 (1999): 391-415.

2.

Two particularly seminal studies by Stager are: “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,”
BASOR 260 (1985): 1-35; and “Archaeology, Ecology and Social History: Background Themes to
the Song of Deborah,” Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden:
Brill, 1988), 221-34.

38

Schloen, “Caravans, Kenites, and Casus Belli: Enmity and Alliance in the Song of Deborah,” CBQ
55 (1993): 18-38; and The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and
the Ancient Near East, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2001). Another entry in the field is L. K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-
Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994). See the comments on
Handy’s book made by Schloen (The House of the Father, 356-57) and myself (The Origins of
Biblical Monotheism, 52-53).

39
Master, “State Formation Theory and the Kingdom of Ancient Israel," JNES 60 (2001): 117-31.
40

Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123, JSOT/ASOR
Monograph Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also her essay, “The Cult of
the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24. Bloch-Smith’s
study of the Jerusalem temple remains the most advanced study available on the subject: ““Who Is
the King of Glory?” Solomon' Temple and Its Symbolism,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts:
Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and
L. E. Stager (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 18-31, which was republished and
modified in M. S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, with contributions by Elizabeth M.
Bloch-Smith, JSOTSup 239 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 85-100. Similarly, her
forthcoming study, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I” (submitted for publication; my thanks to the author
for prepublication access to the article and permission to cite it), advances the current discussion of
Israelite identity in the Iron I period. Truth in advertising: see the end of this preface.

41

King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster
/John Knox, 2001).

42

Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can
Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). See below for
further discussion of one point in this book.

43

Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and
the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press, 2001). See the review of Dever,
“Excavating the Hebrew Bible, or Burying It Again?” BASOR 322 (2001): 67-77.

44

Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London/ New York:
Continuum, 2001).

45

Alpert Nakhai, Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel, ASOR Books 7 (Boston: The
American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001). See also Marit Skjeggestad, Facts in the Ground:

Biblical History in Archaeological Interpretation of the Iron Age in Palestine (Oslo: Unipub forlag,
2001) (reference courtesy of Tryggve Mettinger).

46
Brandfon, “The Limits of Evidence: Archaeology and Objectivity,” Maarav 4/1 (1987): 5-43.
47
Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know? 53-95.
48
Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know? 15, 106.
49
Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know? 266.
50
Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol, 7-62.
al
Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol, 8.
32

Van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the
Forms of Religious Life, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East VII (Leiden:
Brill, 1996).

53
Van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and
the Babylonian Woman, The Bible Seminar 23 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). See also M. I. Gruber,

The Motherhood of God and Other Studies, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 57
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992).

54

Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol, 349-57. See also his article, “The Exile of
Disinherited Kin in KTU 112 and KTU 1.23,” JNES 52 (1993): 209-20.

25
Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 54-66, 77-80, 163-66.
56

See Day’s three articles: “Why Is Anat a Warrior and Hunter?” in The Bible and the Politics of
Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. D. Jobling, P. L.
Day, and G. T. Sheppard (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991), 141-46, 329-32; “Anat: Ugarit’s
“Mistress of Animals,’” JNES 51 (1992): 181-90; and “Anat,” DDD, 36-43.

SY
Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth, SBLDS 135 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).
58

Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion
(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1991); Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in
Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2000); and Wright, Ritual in
Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000).

22

See the discussions of Dever and Finkelstein in the mid-1990s: Dever, “Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the
Question of Israel’s Origins,” BA 58 (1995): 206-10; ““Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?” Part
I: Archaeology and Israelite Historiography,” BASOR 297 (1995): 61-80, and “‘Will the Real Israel
Please Stand Up?’ Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel,” BASOR 298 (1995):
37-58; Finkelstein, “Ethnicity and the Origins of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can

the Real Israel Stand Up?” BA 59 (1996): 198-212. See further Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in
Iron I” (submitted for publication).

60
For example, see the essays in M. Brett, ed., Ethnicity in the Bible (Leiden/New York/ Köln: Brill,

1996); and B. McKay, “Ethnicity and Israelite Religion: The Anthropology of Social Boundaries in
Judges” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1997).

61

For example, R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
See the review of this book by G. W. Ahlstróm in JNES 44 (1985): 217-20.
62

Berlinerblau, The Vow and the ‘Popular Religious Groups’ of Ancient Israel: A Philological and
Sociological Inquiry, JSOTSup 210 (Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); and “Preliminary Remarks
for the Sociological Study of Israelite ‘Official Religion,’” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern,
Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H.
Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 153-70. For a consideration of Berlinerblau's
book, see my review in JSS 43 (1998): 148-51. See also Berlinerblau, *The “Popular Religion”
Paradigm in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique," JSOT 60 (1993): 3-26.

63

See the works by Berlinerblau cited in the preceding note. See also N. K. Gottwald, “Social Class as
an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies," JBL 112 (1993): 3- 22.

64
For some studies of popular religion in European studies (by year), see N. Z. Davis, *Some Tasks
and Themes in the Study of Popular Religion," in /n the Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and
Renaissance Religion, ed. C. Trinkaus and H. A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 307-36; P. M.
Vovelle, “La religion populaire: Problémes et méthodes," Le monde alpin et rhodanien 5 (1977): 7-
32; H. Vrijhof and J. Waardenburg, eds., Official and Popular Religion: Analysis of a Theme for
Religious Studies, Religion and Society 19 (The Hague: Mouton, 1979); and K. L. Jolly, Popular
Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context (Chapel Hill, NC/ London: Univ. of North
Carolina Press, 1996).

65

Blomquist, Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine, An Investigation of the
Archaeological and Biblical Sources, ConBOT 46 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999).

66

Faust, “Doorway Orientation, Settlement Planning and Cosmology in Ancient Israel during Iron
Age IL" Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20/2 (2001): 129-55.

67

For further discussion and bibliography, see M. S. Smith, Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic
Studies in the Twentieth Century (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 192-93.

68

For this perspective, I am indebted to E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I,” which
draws on the work of S. Cornell, “That’s the Story of Our Life,” in We Are a People: Narrative and
Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity, ed. P. Spickard and W. J. Burroughs (Philadelphia:
Temple Univ. Press, 2000), 43-44. Cf. the emphasis placed on traditional narrative in Schloen, The
House of the Father as Fact and Symbol, 29-48.

69
Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).
70

Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1996).

21.

J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press,
1985), 1-20, 21-52, 149-73.

X
See further R. K. Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist?” JBL 119 (2000): 201-20.
I

Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1996); Person, Jr., “The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer,” JBL 117
(1998): 601-9.

74

Coogan, “Literacy and the Formation of Biblical Literature,” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology
and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr, at His Retirement, ed. P. H.
Williams, Jr., and T. Hiebert, Scholars Press Homage Series 23 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999), 47-
61; Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, The Anchor Bible
Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998); Haran, “On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools
in Ancient Israel,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton, 81-95.

75

Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).
76

See the works cited in n. 93 below.
ሪራ

Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 81 (Túbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 99-100, 427-29.

78

Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, Cambridge Studies in
Medieval Literature 10 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990); and The Craft of
Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400-1200, Cambridge Studies in
Medieval Literature 14 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).

79

Lachish 3, 4, 5, 6, conveniently transliterated, translated, and discussed by D. Pardee, in D. Pardee
et al., Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A Study Edition, SBL Sources for Biblical Study 15
(Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982), 81-103.

80

The complexity of the interrelated features of orality, reading, writing, and interpretation has been
underscored for prophecy in the book, Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern
Prophecy, ed. E. Ben-Zvi and M. H. Floyd, SBL Symposium 10 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2000). See also A. Schart, “Combining Prophetic Oracles in Mari Letters and Jeremiah
36,” JANES 23 (1995): 75-93; and K. van der Toorn, “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral
and the Written,” JNWSL 24 (1988): 55-70.

81

For some initial comments about Second Isaiah as a written composition, see below chapter 6,
section 4. For reading, writing, and interpretation in Second Isaiah, see the important study of B. D.
Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, Contraversions. Jews and Other
Differences (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998). Daniel 9 is a written representation of the model
of inspired interpretation of the explicitly named prophetic figure of Jeremiah.

82

See the important article of H. L. Ginsberg, “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Psalmody,” ET 9 (1969
= W. F. Albright Volume): 45-50.

83

I have discussed this idea in an essay entitled “Reading, Writing and Interpretation: Thoughts on
Genesis 1 as Commentary” (unpublished paper).

84

See the survey in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress;
Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992), 313-50.

85

For surveys, see D. Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” in The Cambridge Campanion to
Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998), 21-34; and in the
same volume R. P. Carroll, *Poststructuralist Approaches: New Historicism and Postmodernism,"
50-66.

86

Exceptions are the works of S. B. Parker, The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition, SBL Resources for
Biblical Study 24 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989); and Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions:
Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New
York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).

87

For the Late Bronze-Iron I transition, see the references on p. 21 n. 9. For the Iron I-Iron II
transition, see p. 15 n. 24.

88

Halpern, David s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2001); and McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).
See also W. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel
7:1-17 (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

89

A convenient listing of their works can be found in Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know?
However, I do not condone the rhetoric in this work; indeed, it is the very sort of rhetoric which he
deplores in their publications. See also Dever, “Histories and Nonhistories of Ancient Israel,”
BASOR 316 (1999): 89-105.

90

Wilson, “The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine” (Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press, 2001).

91

For example, see Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London/New York: Routledge,
1995); and Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1988). See also F. A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic
History, JSOTSup 251, Copenhagen International Seminar 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1997).

92
See Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 20-47, esp. 46.
93

On memory in the Bible, see (by year): B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London:
SCM, 1962); W. Schottroff, “Gedenken” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, 2d ed., WMANT
15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967); D. Fleming, “Mari and the Possibilities of
Biblical Memory,” RA 92 (1998): 41-78. For two recent studies on collective memory, see M.
Brettler, “Memory in Ancient Israel,” in Memory and History in Christianity and Judaism, ed. M.
Signer (Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 1-17; and R. S. Hendel, “The Exodus
in Biblical Memory,” JBL 120 (2001): 601-22. Brettler and Hendel are influenced by Y. H.
Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle/London: Univ. of Washington
Press, 1982; rev. ed., 1989). Informed more by Annales figures writing on cultural memory, I am
presently preparing a book-length study of memory and ancient Israelite culture and religion. The
praxes of orality and scribalism mentioned above play a highly significant role in receiving,
transmitting, and generating collective memory.

94

5

Ras Shamra Parallels I-II, ed. L. Fisher, AnOr 49-50 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972,
1975); Ras Shamra Parallels II, ed. S. Rummel, AnOr 51 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1981).

93

For example, S. Ribichini and P Xella, La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, Collezione di
Studi Fenici 20 (Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1985).

96

See R. S. Hess, “A Comparison of the Ugarit, Emar and Alalakh Archives,” in Ugarit: Religion and
Culture; Proceedings of the International Colloquium. Edinburgh July 1994, ed. N. Wyatt, UBL 12
(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 75-84. See also in the same volume M. Dietrich, “Aspects of the
Babylonian Impact on Ugaritic Literature and Religion,” 33-48.

97

See H. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
1965); I. J. Gelb, A Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite, Assyriological Studies 21
(Chicago/London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980); and R. Zadok, “On the Amorite Material from
Mesopotamia,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William H. Hallo,
ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 315-33.

8

The issues are put nicely by D. Pardee, “Background to the Bible: Ugarit,” in Ebla to Damascus:
Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1985), 253-58.

99

Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 396.
100

Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 395-96.
101

See the books mentioned below. For partial surveys (by year), see S. A. Wiggins, “Asherah Again:
Binger's Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies,” INWSL 24 (1998): 231-40; J. A. Emerton,
““Yahweh and his Asherah’: the Goddess or Her Symbol," VT 49 (1999): 315-37; and J. M. Hadley,
The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of
Cambridge Oriental Publications 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001), 11-37. See also W
G. E. Watson, “The Goddesses of Ugarit: A Survey," Studi epigrafici e linguistici 10 (1993): 47-59.

102

Gitin, "Seventh Century BCE cultic elements at Ekron," in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990:
Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1993), 248-58. See further
the discussion below.

103

Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 228-48, 332, 369-70; Keel, Goddesses
and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 262
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). See also U. Hübner, *Der Tanz um die Ascheren," UF
24 (1992): 121-32.

104

Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, SBLMS 34 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988); Frevel,
Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitanspruch YHWHs, BBB 94, two vols. (Weinheim: Beltz
Athenáum, 1995).

105
Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 228-48, 332, 369-70.
106

Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah, HSM 46 (Atlanta:
Scholars, 1992).

107

Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,” JBL 112 (1993): 385-401. The
reasoning has been criticized by B. Halpern, “The New Names of Isaiah 62:4: Jeremiah's Reception
in the Restoration and the Politics of ‘Third Isaiah,’” JBL 117 (1998): 640 n. 46.

108

Wiggins, “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,” UF 23 (1991): 383-94; A
Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia
B.C.E., AOAT 235 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993);
“Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions," Journal of Ancient Near Eastern
Religions 1/1 (2001): 158-87.

109

Merlo, La dea ASratum — Atiratu — Asera: Un contributo alla storia della religione semitica del
Nord (Mursia: Pontificia Università Lateranese, 1998).

110

Dijkstra, “*I Have Blessed You by YHWH of Samaria and His Asherah”: Texts with Religious
Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel,” in Only One God? 17-44; and Korpel, “Asherah
Outside Israel,” in Only One God? 127-50.

lll

Cross (letter to me, dated 7 December 1998) comments in reference to this debate: “If you want
syncretism in the Hebrew Bible, there is plenty of material to be found without manufacturing it."

112
Smith, The Early History of God, 1st ed., 80-97,
113

D. V. Edelman’s criticism that if ‘asérd is not the goddess but only a symbol, then 1 Kings 15:13
would attest to an image made for an image; see Edelman, “Introduction,” in The Triumph of
Elohim, 18.

114

J. H. Tigay, “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” JEJ 40 (1990): 218.
112

See the discussions of Mettinger, Na’aman, and others noted in section | above.

116

Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 45.

117

See 2 Chron. 15:16, discussed by Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 66.
118

See Judges 3:7, discussed by Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 63-64.
119

J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 46 n. 12.
120

As noted by Hadley (The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 7, 67), a later article of mine
characterizes Asherah as a goddess in Israel in the Iron Age. See Smith, “Yahweh and the Other
Deities of Ancient Israel: Observations on Old Problems and Recent Trends,” in Ein Gotte allein?
JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen
Religionsgeshichte, ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, OBO 139 (Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 206. Hadley’s I discussion of my
position may give the impression that it is contradictory, that sometimes I claim Asherah was a
goddess in the Iron Age, elsewhere that she was not. In fact, there is no contradiction in my writing

=

on this point, since the article speaks of the Iron Age (in a summary statement on p. 206), whereas
the book distinguishes matters between Iron I and Iron II.

121

See O. Loretz, Review of The Early History of God, UF 22 (1990): 514: “The author thus exposes
himself ... as unwilling to view the new evidence without the deuteronomistic filter."

122

For comparative evidence marshalled in favor of this view, see P. Xella, “Le dieu et ‘say’ déesse:
Vutilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des théonymes d’Ebla a Ugarit et a Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,”
UF 27 (1995): 599-610; and M. Dietrich, “Die Parhedra in Pantheon von Emar: Miscellenea
Emariana (1),” UF 29 (1997): 115-22.

123
Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 403 n. 10; Zevit’s italics.
124

Gitin, “Seventh Century BCE Cultic Elements at Ekron,” 248-58; cf. Zevit, The Religions of
Ancient Israel, 321 n. 126, 374.

125

Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 179-84; Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 421;
Smith, “Yahweh and the Other Deities of Ancient Israel,” 197-234, and The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism, 73.

126

S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Eqron,” JEJ 47/1-2 (1997):
1-16.

127

These options are discussed by R. G. Lehmann, “Studien zur Formgeschichte der ‘Eqron-Inschrift
des 'KYS und den phónizischen Dedikationtexten aus Byblos,” UF 31 (1999): 255-306, esp. 258-
59.

128

Lydus, De mensibus 4.53; for text and translation, see H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden, Jr., Philo of
Byblos: The Phoenician History, CBQMS 9 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 1979), 70-71.

129

W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of Two Conflicting Faiths
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968). Albright (p. vi) dates the preface of the book 1 July 1967. For
an interesting retrospective of Albright’s thought, see J. A. Miles, Jr., “Understanding Albright: A
Revolutionary Etude,” HTR 69 (1976): 151-75. Albright’s title is echoed in the name of J. Day’s
book, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001). On the term “Canaanite,” see the comments on p. 19 n. 2 below.

130

For surveys of these deities, see M. Dahood, “Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine,” in Le
antiche divinita semitiche, Studi Semitici 1 (Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici, 1958), 65-94; M. H.
Pope and W. Röllig, Syrien: Die Mythologie der Ugarititer und Phönizier, Wörterbuch der
Mythologie 1/1 (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1965), 217-312; A. Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic Texts,” in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugaritic and the Hebrew Bible, vol. 3,
ed. S. Rummel, AnOr 51 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981), 335-469 and various
listings in DDD. For the Ugaritic mythological texts with translations, see J. C. L. Gibson,
Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978); G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos y
leyendas srgún la tradicion de Ugarit, Institución San Jerónimo para la Investigación Biblica,
Fuentes dc la Ciencia Bíblica 1 (Valencia: Institución San Jeronimo; Madrid : Ediciones
Cristianidad, 1981). For translations with notes, see ANET, 129-55; A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A.
Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, vol. 1, Mythes et legendes, LAPO 7 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,
1974); M. D. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978); A. Caquot,

J. M. de Tarragon, and J. L. Cunchillos, Textes ougaritiques: Tome II. textes religieux. rituels.
correspondance, LAPO 14 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1989); M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, in Texte
aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, ed. O. Kaiser, Band II (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus
Gerd Mohn, 1986-); J. C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, Nisaba 16 (Leiden:
Brill, 1987); D. Pardee et al., in W. W. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 1997),
241-375; S. B. Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta,
GA: Scholars, 1997); and N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His
Colleagues, The Biblical Seminar 53 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). For an
introduction to the relations between Ugaritic literature and the Hebrew Bible, see J. C. Greenfield,
“The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and
F. Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, Belknap Press, 1987), 545-60. For further
discussion of Ugaritic and biblical studies, see M. S. Smith, Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic
Studies in the Twentieth Century (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001).

131

Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and
abridged by M. Greenberg (New York: Schocken, 1960), 142-47; H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion,
trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 42, 58, 99; G. Fohrer, History of Israelite
Religion, trans. D. E. Green (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1972), 127-30; G. W. Ahlstrém,
Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion, Horae Soederblomianae V (Lund: Gleerup, 1963), 8; J.
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS
31 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986). Cf. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the
History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 190-91. For
discussion, see D. R. Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite
Religion,” JOR 75 (1985): 253-69.

132

Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 134-47; J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 37-41.
See Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable,” 253-69; R. A. Oden, The Bible Without Theology (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 1-39. See also the observations of Morton Smith, “On the
Differences between the Culture of Israel and the Major Cultures of the Ancient Near East,” JANES
5 (1973): 389-95.

133

Ahlstrém, Aspects of Syncretism, 23-24, 50-51; Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 24, 42, 95- 96, 261 ;
Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 58, 104.

134

See chapter 5, section 2.
135

Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 12, 65-73, 83-85.
136

See D. Pardee, “An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective:
Pantheon Distribution According to Genre,” in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving,
ed. A. Archi (Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988), 119-51. Pardee collects a
number of examples of deities worshiped in cult, but absent from the onomastica. See also K. M.
Weiss, D. L. Rossmann, R. Chakraborty, and S. L. Norton, “Wherefore Art Thou, Romeo? Name
Frequency Patterns and Their Use in Automated Genealogy Assembly,’ in Genealogical
Demography, ed. B. Dyke and W. T. Morrill (New York: Academic Press, 1980), 41-61. For a
critique of Tigay’s study, see R. Callaway, “The Name Game: Onomastic Evidence and
Archaeological Reflections on Religion in Late Judah,” Jian Dao II (1999): 15-36.

137

See J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications from Kuntillet “Ajrad;” ZAW
94 (1982): 16 n. 10; S. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, SBLMS 34 (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars, 1988), 35-36; J. M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah : Evidence
for a Hebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57 (Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 2000), 106-55; and Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of
Parallactic Approaches (London/New York: Continuum, 2001), 370-405. F. Gróndahl (Die

Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Studia Pohl 1 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967]) lists
no proper names with 'atrt as the theophoric element.

138

Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 36-37. For further discussion of Tannit, see D. Harden, The
Phoenicians, 2d ed. (Middlesex, England/New York: Penguin, 1980), 79; DISO, 229; Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28; M. Dothan, “A Sign of Tannit from Tel ‘Akko,” IEJ 24
(1974): 44-49; R. A. Oden, Jr., Studies in Lucian s De Syria Dea, HSM 15 (Missoula, MT: Scholars,
1977), 92-93, 141-49; M. Górg, Zum Namen der punischen Góttin Tinnit,” UF 12 (1980): 303-6;
E. Lipinski, *Notes d'epigraphie phéniciennes et puniques," OLP 14 (1983): 129- 65; P Bordreuil,
“Tanit du Liban (Nouveaux documents pheniciens III)," in Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean
in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Louvain 14-16 November
1985, Studia Phoenicia V (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987), 79-86; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult
of Yahweh, 53-54, 59-60; Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 62-64, 199-215, 423-26, 440-46.

139

For convergence in this early period, see B. Halpern, “*Brisker Pipes Than Poetry’: The
Development of Israelite Monotheism,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, B.
A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 88. That this was a general feature of
Israelite society as a whole as argued by Halpern appears unlikely in view of the worship of Baal in
ancient Israel (see chapter 2, section 1). Cross uses the term “differentiation” with respect to
Canaanite and Israelite religion (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 71). In his discussion of the
biblical combination of El and Baal traits in the personage of Yahweh, he uses the term “conflation”
(163), which I take to reflect the larger process of convergence. See also Ahlstróm, “The Travels of
the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition,” JNES 43 (1984): 146- 48. For further discussion, see
below, especially chapter 1, section 4; chapter 3, section 5; chapter 5; and chapter 6, section 1. In his
review of the first edition of this book, S. Parker prefers the term “individuation” to my
“differentiation.” See Parker, Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): 158. For “differentiation,” see further G.
Emberling, “Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives,” Journal of
Archaeological Research 5/4 (1997): 306, reference courtesy of E. Bloch-Smith; see her relevant
piece, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I” (tentative title, in preparation).

140

For discussion of the dating of the so-called old poetry, see F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studies
in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, SBLDS 76 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975); Cross, Canaanite Myth
and Hebrew Epic, 100-103, 121-44, 151-62, 234-37; D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and
Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 77- 178. For a
contrary view, see M. H. Floyd, “Oral Tradition as a Problematic Factor in the Historical
Interpretation of Poems in the Law and the Prophets” (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School,
1980), 174-205, 484-93.

141

D. A. Robertson, “Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry” (Ph.D. diss., Yale
University, 1966); M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980).

142

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 100-101. G. Garbini (“Il cantico di Debora,” La parola
del passato 178 [1978]: 5-31 ) and J. A. Soggin (Judges: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia :
Westminster, 1981], 93) argue for a monarchic date for Judges 5, but some details of background in
this chapter suggest an earlier setting (see L. E. Stager, “Archaeology, Ecology, and Social History:
Background Themes to the Song of Deborah,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J.
Emerton, VTSup [Leiden: Brill, 1988], 221-34).

143

This has been seen by H. Gottlieb (“El und Krt — Jahwe und David. Zum Ursprung des
alttestamentlichen Monotheismus," VT 24 [1974]: 159-67) and Morton Smith (Palestinian Parties
and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament [New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1971 ], 21-22).
Most substantial treatments of the history of religion in Israel comment on the role of the monarchy.
For example, see Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 57-65, 220-38; Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion,
123-50; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 219-65; G. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation:
The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973), 181, 188-94; G.

W. Ahlstróm, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine, Studies in the
History of the Ancient Near East 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1982); idem, Who Were the Israelites? (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986), 85-99; Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,” 77-115.

144

See W. G. Lambert, “The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in
Sophisticated Polytheism,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of
the Ancient Near East, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press,
1975), 191-200; idem, “Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” BSOAS 48 (1985):
439; A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian
Scholars (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 101, 233; W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks, AOAT 213
(Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 174-81. On the fifty
names of Marduk, see J. Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk, l'écriture et la ‘logique’ en Mésopotamie
ancienne,” in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. M. de Jong
Ellis, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences (Hamden, CT: Archon Books,
1977), 5-28. For further discussion, see R. S. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in
Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion
in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and
Theology 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 206-12; and M. S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford/ New York: Oxford
Univ. Press, 2001), 87-88. See further S. Parpola, “Monotheism in Ancient Assyria,” in One God or
Many? Conceptions of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. B. N. Porter, Transactions of the Casco
Bay Assyriological Institute (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000), 165- 209.

145

On Amun-Re, see J. Assman, Re und Amun: Die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbildes im Agypten
der 18.-20. Dynastie, OBO 51 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); G. Posener, “Sur le
monothéisme dans l'ancienne Egypte," in Mélanges biblique et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri
Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT 212 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 347-51; cf. D. B. Redford, Akhenaten: The Heretic King
(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1984), 158, 176, 205, 225-26, 232; J. C. de Moor, “The Crisis of
Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit,” OTS 24 (1986): 1-20; J. Baines, “Egyptian Deities in Context:
Multiplicity, Unity, and the Problem of Change,” in One God or Many? ed. B. N. Porter, 9-78, esp.
53-62. See also Halpern, ““Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,’” 79-80.

146

J. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D.
McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 178-79.

147

On this point, see J. P. Floss, Jahwe dienen — Göttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und
semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhältnis im Alten Testament,
BBB 45 (Cologne and Bern: Peter Hanstein Verlag GmbH, 1975), esp. 140-49.

148

See Ahlström, Royal Administration, 69, M. S. Smith, “God Male and Female in the Old Testament:
Yahweh and His Asherah," Theological Studies 48 (1987): 338. Halpern (““*Brisker Pipes Than
Poetry," 85, 87, 88, 91, 96, 101) equates Israel's monolatrous henotheism (1.e., worship of one deity
without denying the existence of other deities) with monotheism and calls the monolatrous
henotheistic religion of monarchic Israel “unselfconsciously monotheistic.” For a study of this
terminology, see D. L. Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism: The Unfinished Agenda,” in Canon,
Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. G. M.
Tucker, D. L. Petersen, and R. R. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 92-107. See also the
discussion in chapter 6.

149

See G. A. Herion, “The Impact of Modern and Social Science Assumptions on the Reconstruction
of Israelite Religion,” JSOT 34 (1986): 3-33; and J. Berlinerblau, “The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm
in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique,” JSOT 60 (1993): 3-26.

150

B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1988), 3-35; cf. M. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London/ New York:
Routledge, 1995). See also the discussion above on pp. xxvi-xxviii.

151

For the Late Bronze-Iron I transition, see below p. 21 n. 9. For the Iron I-Iron II transition, see A.
Faust, “Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and the Formation of the Israelite State,” Near
Eastern Archaeology (in press).

152

For discussion and evidence, see A. Faust, “Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and the
Formation of the Israelite State,” and E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I” (in
preparation). I do not accept the cause put forth by Faust for these developments.

153

For illustrations of problems inherent in historical reconstructions, see D. H. Fischer, Historians’
Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970).

154

For a critical treatment of issues pertaining to the definition, terminology, and understanding of
monotheism in Israel, see Halpern, ““Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,” 75-115; Petersen, “Israel and
Monotheism,” 92-107.

155
Cf. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 226-33.
156

On the environment and social organization of early Israel, see L. E. Stager, “The Archaeology of
the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1-35; C. Meyers, “Of Seasons and Soldiers: A
Topographical Appraisal of the Premonarchic Tribes of Galilee,” BASOR 252 (1983): 47-59;
Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? 2-83; J. W. Rogerson, “Was Israel a Fragmentary Society?”
JSOT 36 (1986): 17-26; and E. Bloch-Smith and B. Alpert Nakhai, “A Landscape Comes to Life:
The Iron Age I,” Near Eastern Archaeology 62/2 (1999): 62-92, 101-27. On judicial administration
in early Israel, see R. R. Wilson, “Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority in
Early Israel,” The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, ed. H.
B. Huffmon, E A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 59-75. The
traditional designation, “period of the Judges,” is employed without adherence to the notion that this
label accurately characterizes the period of Israelite history (ca. 1200-1000). For the
historiographical issues involved with this label, see A. D. H. Mayes, “The Period of the Judges and
the Rise of the Monarchy,” in /sraelite and Judaean History , ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 285-331.

157

In this edition, I have generally used the more tradition label, “Canaanite.” However, “Canaanite” as
a term of contrast with “Israelite” is more a product of biblical historiography than historical record.
I prefer instead the term, “West Semitic,” since it does not reinscribe the ideology of biblical
historiography. For discussion, see M. S. Smith, Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in
the Twentieth Century (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 196-97. See further O.
Loretz, “Ugariter, “Kanaanáer” und “Israeliten,”” UF 24 (1992): 249-58.

158

See Stager, “Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” 1-35; J. Callaway, “A New Perspective
on the Hill Country Settlement of Canaan in Iron Age L” in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages:
Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb (London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985), 31-49.

159

On the continuity of noncuneiform alphabetic scripts between the highlands and the valleys and
coast, see the references below in n. 30. On alphabetic cuneiform texts with a comparable
distribution, see A. R. Millard, “The Ugaritic and Canaanite Alphabets — Some Notes,” UF 11
(1979): 613-16.

160

For the scholarly views regarding the relationships among Northwest Semitic languages, see J. C.
Greenfield, “Amurrite, Ugaritic and Canaanite,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Semitic Studies Held in Jerusalem, 19-23 July 1965 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, 1969), 92-101; W. R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E.
(Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 2-6. For a listing of pertinent works, see 241-60.

161

E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1982), 67. D.
Pardee proposes that the Gezer Calendar is possibly Phoenician (review of Textbook of Syrian
Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3, Phoenician Inscriptions, Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of
Arslan Tash, by J. C. L. Gibson, JNES 46 [1987]: 139 n. 20). This classification is based on
comparing the proleptic suffixes in lines 1 and 2 of the Gezer Calendar, in Phoenician inscriptions,
and in late biblical Hebrew (Ezek. 10:3; 42:14; Prov. 13:4; Ezra 3:12; Job 29:3). The suffixes in the
Gezer Calendar are notoriously difficult, however, and other, albeit less convincing, proposals for
them have been made. Moreover, the anticipatory or proleptic suffix may represent a survival in
both Phoenician and Hebrew (see Garr, Dialect Geography, 63, 108,167-68).

162

For “Canaan” and “Canaanite” as terms applied to both material culture and language, see the
following discussions: B. Maisler (Mazar), “Canaan and the Canaanites,” BASOR 102 (1946): 7-12;
W. F. Albright, “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization in The Bible and the
Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1961), 328-420; J. C. L. Gibson, “Observations on Some Important Ethnic Terms
in the Pentateuch,” JNES 20 (1961): 217-38; M. C. Astour, “The Origin of the Terms ‘Canaan,’
‘Phoenician’ and ‘Purple,’” JNES 24 (1965): 346-50; A. F. Rainey, “A Canaanite at Ugarit,” IEJ 13
(1963): 43-45; idem, “The Kingdom of Ugarit,” BA 28/4 (1965): 105-7 (reprinted in The Biblical
Archaeologist Reader 3, ed. E. F. Campbell, Jr., and D. N. Freedman [Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
Anchor Books, 1970], 79-80); idem, “Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,” UF 3 (1971): 171; idem,
“Toponymic Problems (cont.),” TA 6 (1979): 161; idem, “Toponymic Problems (cont.),” TA 9
(1982): 131-32; R. de Vaux, “Le Pays de Canaan,” JAOS 88 (1968): 23-30; idem, Histoire ancienne
d'Israel: Des origines a l'installation en Canaan (Paris: Gabalda, 1971), 124-26 (translation: The
Early History of Israel, trans. D. Smith [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 126-28); A. R. Millard,
"The Canaanites," in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon,
1973), 29-52; M. Gorg, “Der Name ‘Kanaan’ in aegyptischer Wiedergabe," BN 18 (1982): 26-27;
M. Weippert, *Kinahhi," BN27 (1985): 18-21; idem, *Kanaan," Reallexikon der Assyriologie
5:352-55. See N. P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites,
JSOTSup 110 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991). See the critiques of A. Rainey, “Who Is a Canaanite? A
Review of the Textual Evidence,” BASOR 304 (1996): 1-15; N. Na’aman, “The Canaanites and
Their Land: A Rejoinder,” UF 26 (1994): 397- 418. See Lemche’s responses in “Greater Canaan:
The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151:49-67,” BASOR 310 (1998): 19-24, and “Where
Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Na’aman,” UF 28 (1996): 767-72. See also 0.
Fleming, ““The Storm God of Canaan” at Emar,” UF 26 (1994): 127-30; R. Hess, “Occurrences of
“Canaan” in Late Bronze Age Archites of the West Semitic World,” /OS 18 (1998): 365-72; idem,
“Canaan and Canaanites at Alalakh,” UF 31 (1999): 225-36; and N. Na’aman, “Four Notes on the
Size of Late Bronze Age Canaan,” BASOR 313 (1999): 31-38. See also the comments in Smith,
Untold Stories, 196-97. Late Bronze Age “Canaan” as a geographical unit refers to the Egyptian
province generally and to the coast in particular (Maisler, “Canaan and the Canaanites,” 11). The
northern limit of Canaan ran somewhere south of the kingdom of Ugarit and north of Byblos (see
Rainey, “Kingdom of Ugarit,” 106; idem, “Toponymic Problems (cont.),” TA 9 [1982]: 131).
Canaanite merchants are distinguished at Ugarit as foreigners (Rainey, “A Canaanite at Ugarit,” 43-
45; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Ugarit and the Bible II,” Biblica 59 [1978]: 117). The relationship
between Ugaritic and Canaanite language is more complex (see the works cited in n. 5 and the
remarks of Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 116 n. 15). Second-century coins minted in
Laodicea (Latakia) bear the inscription “Of Laodicea, mother in Canaan” (G. F. Hill, A Catalogue
of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia [London: Longmans, 1910], pl. 50). In the homeland, the term
“Canaanite” is attested as late as the New Testament (Matt 15:22; c£ Mark 7:26).

163

O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39; A Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1974), 106-7; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980), 171; H. M. Orlinsky, “The Biblical Concept
of the Land of Israel,” El 18 (1986 = N. Avigad Volume): 55* n. 17. On this verse, see further D.
Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l'Ancien Testament: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, OBO 50/2
(Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 1.143-50.

164

See the survey in Bloch-Smith and Alpert-Nakhai, “A Landscape Comes to Life,” 62- 92, 101-27.
See also A. Mazar, “The Iron Age 1,” in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor, trans. R.
Greenberg (New Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press/The Open University of Israel, 1992), 258-301;
S. Bunimovitz, “Socio-Political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron
I Transition,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early
Israel, ed. 1. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zri/Israel Exploration Society;
Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1994), 179-202; and Dever, What Did the
Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? 108-24. See some helpful cautions expressed
by S. Bunimovitz and A. Faust, “Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic
Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology,’ BASOR 332 (2001): 1-10. For
economic considerations, see R. F. Muth, “Economic Influences on Early Israel,” JSOT 75 (1997):
59-75.

165

See A. Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem,” JEJ 31 (1981): 20-27,
32-33; Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? 26, 28; I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite
Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 270-91, 337.

166

For a lack of diagnostic features distinguishing Canaanite and Israelite material culture in the Judges
period, see Ahlstróm, Who Were the Israelites? 28-35; Callaway, “A New Perspective,” 37-41; W.
G. Dever, “The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite
Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller,
Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 235; M. M. Ibrahim, “The
Collared Rim Jar of the Early Iron Age," in Archaeology and the Levant: Essays in Honor of
Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr (Warminster, England: Aris & Philips, 1978), 116-26;
A. Schoors, “The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument," in The
Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovansiensia Analecta 19
(Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 78-92. See also G. and O. van Beek, “Canaanite-Phoenician
Architecture: The Development and Distribution of Two Styles,” El 15 (1981): 70*-74*. See also
the continuity of the practice of terrace agriculture; see S. Gibson, “Agricultural Terraces and
Settlement Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine: Is There Any Correlation
between the Two?” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A.
Mazar, with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001), 113-46.

167

R. Gonen, “Regional Patterns and Burial Customs in Late Bronze Age Canaan,” Bulletin of the
Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (1984-85): 70-74; E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Burials, Israelite,”
ABD 1.785-89; idem, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123,
JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also her essay,
“The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24. See
further R. Tappy, “Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah?” BASOR 298 (1995): 59-68.

168

See B. A. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus w^ (Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem:
The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 15.

169

See Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 58-59; B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of
Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974); J. M. de Tarragon, Le Culte à
Ugarit, CRB 19 (Paris: Gabalda, 1980); M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly

Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background," in Proceedings of the Eighth World
Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), 95- 129.

170

See J. C. de Moor and P Sanders, *An Ugaritic Expiation Rite and Its Old Testament Parallels," UF
23(1991): 283-300.

4171

Regarding cultic personnel at Ugarit, see J. M. de Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit d’après les textes de
la pratique en cunéiformes Alphabétiques, CRB 19 (Paris: Gabalda, 1980), 131-48; M. Heltzer, The
Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit (Royal Service System, Taxes, Royal Economy,
Arms and Administration) (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982), 131- 39. For a synopsis
of cultic personnel at Ugarit, see D. M. Clements, Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice, Vol.
Ugaritic and Ugaritic Akkadian Texts, AOAT 284/1 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001), 1086-89. For a
general presentation of Ugaritic ritual, see G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the
Liturgical Texts of Ugaritic, trans. W. G. E. Watson (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1999). For in-depth
study of the Ugaritic ritual texts, see the magisterial work of D. Pardee, Les textes rituels, 2 vols.,
RSO XII (Paris: Edition Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2000). An English translation of the rituals
is to appear from Pardee in the Writing in the Ancient World series. Concerning Ugaritic ytnm, BH
nétinim and nétinim , see B. A. Levine, “The Néthinim,” JBZ 82 (1963): 207-12; E. Puech, “The
Tel el-Fül Jar and the N&thinim,” BASOR 261 (1986): 69-72. On qdS, see M. I. Gruber, “Hebrew
qédésah and Her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates,” UF 18 (1986): 133; see also the references in
n. 18.

172
On the Ugaritic parallels to BH 'ohel mó*ed, see chapter 1, section 2.
173

The interpretation of BH qédesah is a good example of how cultural equivalences have been
wrongly drawn on the basis of etymological cognates. According to Gruber (“Hebrew qédesadh,”
133-48), scholars have incorrectly imputed a cultic background to BH qédesadh, "prostitute" (Gen.
38:21-22; Deut. 23:18[E 17]; Hos. 4:14), and a sexual meaning to its cognates, Ugaritic qdst and
Akkadian qadiétu. In this way, BH qédesadh and its cognates have been viewed as terms for cultic
prostitutes. Based on his examination of the extant evidence, Gruber concludes, on the contrary, that
BH qédesadh refers to a (secular) prostitute, while its Ugaritic and Akkadian cognates refer to cultic
functionaries whose roles do not include sexual activities. See further the discussions of J. G.
Westenholz, “Tamar, Qědēšā, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitutions in Mesopotamia," HTR 82/3 (1989):
245-65; and P. A. Bird, Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient
Israel, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 206-8, 233-36. See further S.
Ackerman, Warrior Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel, The Anchor
Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 156, 176 n. 92.

174

This is not to suggest that the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron I in the highlands was
simple. The archaeology of this transition is immensely complicated, and beyond the scope of this
discussion. For treatments of this subject, see the works cited in n. 9.

175

See M. D. Coogan, “Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel,”
in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P D.
Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 115.

176
For the traditions of the southern sanctuary, see chapter 2, section 2.
177

On the development of the traditions of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness, see B. S.
Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 218-30, 25464.

178

Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 43-44. The Canaaanite background of the name of Yahweh is
contraverted. According to Cross and Freedman Yahweh was a shortened form of a title of El,
which became a divine name (Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 60-72; idem, “Reuben,
First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100 [1988]: 57-63; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 132-46,
119-20). For criticisms of this theory see Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 68; Childs, The Book of
Exodus, 62-64; A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1981), 71-73, 159-64. For the argument that the name of Yahweh may be related to a
place name in the region to the south of Canaan mentioned in Late Bronze Age Egyptian records,
see R. Giveon, “Toponymes Ouest-Asiatiques a Soleb,” VT 14 (1964): 244; S. Herrman, Israel in
Egypt, Studies in Biblical Theology 11/27 (London: SCM, 1973), 56-86; cf. M. C. Astour, “Yahweh
in Egyptian Topographic Lists,” in Festschrift Elmar Edel: 12 Marz 1979, ed. M. Gorg and E.
Pusch, Aegypten und Altes Testament 1 (Bamberg: M. Görg, 1979), 17-34; Ahlström, Who Were
the Israelites? 58-60; R. J. Hess, “The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources?” UF 23
(1991): 180-82. For further discussion of the issues, see D. B. Redford, “The Ashkelon Relief at
Karnak and the Israel Stela,” /EJ 36 (1986): 199-200; M. Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” in
Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D.
Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 303-14; Finkelstein, Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement , 345.

179

ANET, 378. For the text, see K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical ,
vol. 4 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), 12-19. For further information, see M. Lichtheim, Ancient
Egyptian Literature, vol. 2, The New Kingdom (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California
Press, 1976), 73-78. For further discussion, see D. Redford, “The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and the
Israel Stela,” 188-200; A. R. Schulman, “The Great Historical Inscription of Mernepta at Karnak: A
Partial Reappraisal,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 24 (1987): 21-34; M.
Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” BASOR 296 (1994): 45-61. For an analysis of the text, see
A. Niccacci, “La Stéle d'Israél. Grammaire et stratégie de communication,” in Études
Égyptologiques et Bibliques à la mémoire du Pére B. Couroyer, ed. M. Sigrist, CRB 36 (Paris:
Gabalda, 1997), 43-107. For further commentary (especially a critique of Hasel's article), see A.
Rainey, “Israel in Merneptah’s Inscription and Reliefs,” JEJ 51 (2001): 57-75.

180

For discussion, see ANET, 378 n. 18; G. W. Ahlström and D. Edelman, “Merneptah’s Israel,” JNES
44 (1985): 59-61; Ahlstróm, Who Were the Israelites? 37-42.

181

See the valuable survey by E. Bloch-Smith and B. A. Nakhai, “A Landscape Comes to Life: The
Iron Age L” Near Eastern Archaeology 62 (1999): 62-92, 101-27.

182

For a recent discussion of various positions on the development of Israelite historical material, see
Halpern, The First Historians; see also chapter 1, section 3.

183

Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 16, 211 n. 15; D. Sperling, "Israel's Religion in the Ancient
Near East," in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages, ed. A. Green, World
Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 13 (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 9.
Smith would include Midianites on the basis of Num. 10:29f. and Moabites on the basis of Num.
25:1-5. While it is possible that Midianites and Moabites were components in the population of
early Israel, the sources cited do not support this reconstruction.

184

See D. Esse, review of The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, by 1. Finkelstein, Biblical
Archaeologist Review 14/5 (1988): 6-9.

185

See F. M. Cross, “Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,”
BASOR 238 (1980): 2-3; E. Puech, “Origine de l'alphabet," RB 93 (1986): 174. On this type of
name, see W. F. Albright, *Northwest Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the
Eighteenth Century B.C.,” JAOS 74 (1954): 225-26; idem, “An Ostracon from Calah and the North-
Israelite Diaspora,” BASOR 149 (1958): 34 n. 12; and H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1965), 161. For issues concerning the dating of these
inscriptions, see R. Wallenfels, “Redating the Byblian Inscriptions,” JANES 15 (1983): 97- 100.

186

On the Taanach letter, see ANET, 490. Concerning the inscription on the Lachish ewer, see F. M.
Cross, “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet,” BASOR 134 (1954): 21; idem, “The
Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet,” El 8 (1967 = E. L. Sukenik Volume), 16*; Puech,
“Origine de l’alphabet,” 178-80; idem, “The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish and Their Religious
Background,” TA 13-14 (1986-87): 17-18. In the first article, Cross offers a second possible
translation: “A gift: a lamb for my Lady ’Elat.”

187

Cross, “Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet," 20 n. 17. In CTA 3.2(KTU 1.3 IDI).18, 'i/t refers
to the goddess Anat; otherwise it refers to Athirat (1.4[1.1 IV].14; 3.5.45 = 1.3 V 37; 4.1.8 =1.417;
4,4[1.41V].49; 6.1 [1.61].40; 15.3 [1.15 III].26; 14.4.198, 202 = 1.14IV 35, 39). A neo-Punic
inscription bears a dedication /hrbt I’It, “to the Lady, the Goddess” (G. A. Cook, A Textbook of
North Semitic Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon, 1903], 158, cf. 135). See also the name Abdi-
Ashirta (meaning “servant of Asherah”) of Amurru in the EA letters (see B. Halpern, The
Emergence of Israel in Canaan, SBLMS 29 [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983], 58-62, 69-78).

188

Cross, “Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,” 7. On the arrowheads of this period, see T. C.
Mitchell, “Another Palestinian Inscribed Arrowhead,” in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages:
Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb, 136-53.

189

See A. E. Glock, “Texts and Archaeology at Tell Ta‘anak,” Berytus 31 (1983): 59-61. The
theophoric element of b’] may lie behind “IM attested as the theophoric element in the Canaanite
names of some senders of El Amarna letters, e.g., EA 249-250, 256, and 258. See R. Hess, “Divine
Names in the Amarna Texts,” UF 18 (1986): 154. The name b‘ly is attested in a ca. twelfth-century
inscription from Shiqmana (see A. Lemaire, “Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique,” Semitica
30 [1980]: 17-32).

190
Puech, “The Canaanite Inscriptions,” 17.

191
Puech, “The Canaanite Inscriptions,” 17-22.

192
On ‘é/ bérit, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 39, 44; T. J. Lewis, “The Identity and
Function of El/Baal Berith,” JBL 115 (1996): 401-23; and L. E. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at
Shechem and the “House of El, Lord of the Covenant,” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and

Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, ed. P. H. Williams,
Jr., and T. Hiebert, Scholars Press Homage Series 23 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999), 228-49.

193

See Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 229-31; cf. the biblical evidence that Kaufmann (229 n. 7)
dismisses.

194

The secondary literature exhibits little consensus concerning the date of Deuteronomy 32. Some
commentators, citing archaic poetic features, favor a date in the first half of the monarchy or earlier
(see P K. Skehan, “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (Dt 32:1-43),” CBQ 13
[1951]: 153-63 ; idem, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, CBQMS 1 [Washington, DC:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971], 67-77; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,
264 n. 193; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 99-101 Other writers prefer an exilic or
postexilic date (see G. von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. D. Barton, OTL [London:
SCM, 1966], 200; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible [London: Oliphants, 1979],
382). Yahweh’s choice of Israel in MT Deut. 32:8-9 need not be viewed as a late feature. A
comparable concept is attested in the Wen-Amun tale dated to ca. 1100. In this story, the ruler of

Byblos, Zakar-Ba’l, tells Wen-Amun: “Now when Amon founded all lands, in founding them he
founded first the land of Egypt” (ANET, 27; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2,
227). According to von Rad, the mixture of literary material (wisdom, prophetic, etc.) does not
favor an early date. Moreover, commentators have noted the presence of originally northern
elements (e.g., the mention of Jacob in v. 9) and southern components (the divine appellative of
“rock”), presupposing a setting when these features had come together. This combination of
features, too, would support a date in the eighth century or later, according to A. Reichert (“The
Song of Moses (Dt. 32) and the Quest for the Deuteronomic Psalmody,” in Proceedings of the Ninth
World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A, The Period of the Bible [Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies, 1986], 57-58). For the evidence for a later date, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, 72 n. 7. For a recent survey, see P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, OTS 37
(Leiden: Brill, 1996).

195
See n. 5 above.
196
G. W. Ahlström, “Where Did the Israelites Live?” JNES 41 (1982): 134.
197
On “elyon as a title of El, see section 4 below.
198

MT reads béné yisrà 'el, whereas LXX aggelon theou and Qumran bny "Ihym (cf. Symmachus and
Old Latin). For the DSS evidence, see the discussion by J. A. Duncan, in Qumran Cave 4. IX:
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. E. Ulrich and F. M. Cross, DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon,
1995), 90. See also P. K. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran,”
BASOR 136 (1954): 12-15; R. Meyer, *Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32, 8f. 43 (4Q) für die
Auslegung Mosesliedes," in Verbannung und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. jahrhundert v. Chr.
Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage, ed. A. Kuschke (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1961), 197-209.
E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen/Maastricht: Van
Gorcum, 1992), 269; A. Schenker, “Le monothéisme israélite: un dieu qui transcende le monde et
les dieux,” Biblica 78 (1997): 438. Skehan (Studies, 69) notes that Ben Sira 17:17, reflecting later
exegesis of Deut. 32:8, implies a divine ruler for every nation.

199
See above for the biblical references to these locations, and n. 82 below.
200

For discussion of Yahweh's original people, his importation from Edom and his secondary adoption
into the highlands religion, see K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel
(Leiden: Brill, 1996), 266-315, esp. 281-86; and “Yahweh,” DDD, 910-19, and Smith, The Origins
of Biblical Monotheism, 135-48. See below n. 82. The background of the name of Yahweh is
disputed. For a present discussion of the form, see J. Tropper, “Der Gottesname *Yahwa,” VT 51
(2001): 81-106. For earlier proposals, see K. van der Toorn, “Yahweh,” DDD, 913-16. For a recent
defense of Yahweh as a title of El, see M. Dijkstra, “El, de God van Israél — Israel, het volk van
YHWH. Over de van het Jahwisme in Oud-Israél,” in Eén God alleen ... ? Over monothéisme in
Oud-Israél en de verering van de godin Asjera, ed. B. Becking and M. Dijkstra (Kampen: Kok,
1998), 59-92; and his article, “El, YHWH and Their Asherah: On Continuity and Discontinuity in
Canaanite and Ancient Israelite Religion,” in Ugarit: Eine ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum in Alten
Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung; Band I. Ugarit und seine altorientalische
Umwelt, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, ALASP 7 (Minster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), 43-73. Like
earlier advocates of this view, Dijkstra has not marshalled evidence for the identification of Yahweh
as a title of El. A plausible case for the Midianite-Edomite background of Yahweh has been made
by K. van der Toorn, but the argument for the importation of Yahweh-cult under Saul due to his
Edomite background is speculative. See van der Toorn, Family Religion, 266-86.

201

O. Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1 (1956): 25-37; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 44-
75. For the possible attestation of El at Ebla as DINGER in an offering list, see W. G. Lambert, “Old

Testament Mythology in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986,
ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 131. Cf. DINGER-li in Emar 282:16.

202

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 44. For various views as to how the identification
between Yahweh and El occurred, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,”
337-42; and C. E. L'Heureux, “Searching for the Origins of God,” in Traditions in Transformation:
Turning Points in Biblical Faith, Festschrift Honoring Frank Moore Cross, ed. B. Halpern and J. D.
Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 33-44. Ezekiel 28 represents an exception to the
fact that the biblical tradition does not distinguish between El and Yahweh, but the god in this satire
on the city of Tyre is the Tyrian El and not the El indigenous to Israel’s Canaanite tradition. On this
chapter, see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, VTSup 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 97-103; R. R. Wilson,
“The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the
Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford,
CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 211-18, esp. 213-14; Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite
Literature,” 554; H. R. Page, Jr., The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic
and Biblical Literature, VTSup 65 (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1996), 140- 58; and D. E.
Callendar, Jr., Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human, HSS
48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 179-89. Recognizing that Ezekiel 28 refers to Tyrian El
would provide further confirmation that El was a Tyrian god although under a different name (e.g.
Bethel, see below).

203

See J. J. M. Roberts, “El,” LDBSup, 255-58. For a recent treatment of BH '¿lohím, see J. S. Burnett,
A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, SBLDS 183 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 2001).

204
M. H. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 294-95.
205

See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 47 n. 15, 52-60, 86 n. 17, 298; Childs, The Book of
Exodus, 111-14; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 86; J. A. Hackett, “Some Observations
on the Balaam Traditions at Deir ‘Alla,” BA 49 (1986): 216-22; idem, “Religious Traditions in
Israelite Transjordan,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P.
D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 125-36. Cf. O. Loretz, “Der kanaanäische Ursprung
des biblischen Gottesnames E/ Saddaj, " UF 11 (1979): 420-21; E. A. Knauf, *El Saddai — der Gott
Abrahams?” BN 29 (1985): 97-103. For the editio princeps of the Deir ‘Alla texts, see J. Hoftijzer
and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla (Leiden: Brill, 1976). For bibliography
pertaining to the Deir ‘Alla texts up to 1984, see W. E. Aufrecht, “A Bibliography of the Deir ‘Alla
Plaster Texts," Newsletter for Targumic and Cognate Studies, Supplement 2 (1985): 1-7. The $dym
in Deut. 32:16-17 and Ps. 106:37 may not be demons (cf. Akkadian sédu), but a group of deities
corresponding to sdyn in the Deir ’Alla texts (for discussion, see J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Texts
from Deir “Alla, HSM 31 [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984], 85-89; idem, “Religious Traditions,” 133).
Might they be the military retinue of El Shadday? For further discussion, see below section 5.

206

Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 12, 65-73, 83-85. These totals for Yahweh and El names
compare with only twenty-six plausible non-Yahweh-El names. Some of the twenty-six cases may
be Yahwistic (such as ibsIm, “[divine] ally is good”[?], so Tigay, 69) or belong to foreigners. The
relative popularity of El names in fact stems from their being considered Yahwistic names. Z. Zevit
(“A Chapter in the History of Israelite Proper Names,” BASOR 250 [1983]: 1- 16) notes that no
names with -yhi-yhw occur before the tenth century, perhaps reflecting the relatively late
development of Yahweh’s cult in Canaan/Israel (cf. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 21). See
also S. I. L. Norin, Sein Name allein ist hoch: Das Jhw-haltige Suffix althebraischer
Personnennamen untersucht mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der _alttestamentlichen
Redaktionsgeschichte, ConBOT 24 (Lund: Gleerup, 1986). For the limitations on using proper
names as evidence of religious practice, see introduction. On onornastic lag, see Tigay, You Shall
Have No Other Gods, 17.

207

For descriptions of El, see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 34-35; and W. Herrmann, “El,” DDD,
274-80. See further W. Herrmann, “Wann werde Jahwe zum Schópfer der Welt,” UF 23 (1991):
166-80. Ugaritic examples of iconography of the bearded El include ANEP, no. 493, and the
drinking mug from Ugarit. For discussion, see C. F. A. Schaeffer, “Neue Entdeckungen in Ugarit,”
Archiv für Orientsforschung 20 (1963): 206-16, esp. fig. 30; idem, "Le culte d'El à Ras Shamra et le
veau d'or" CRAIBL 1966, 327-28; idem, Nouveaux témoinages du culte d'El et de Baal à Ras
Shamra et ailleurs en Syrie-Palestine,” Syria 43 (1966): 1-19, esp. fig. 1; M. H. Pope, “The Scene
on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit," in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright,
ed. H. Goedicke (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1971), 393-405; Cross, Canaanite Myth
and Hebrew Epic, 35-36. These pieces of iconography of El are the closest analogues to the metal
enthroned male figures with hand upraised from Ugarit, Jezzin (Lebanon), Byblos, Tell Abu
Hawam, Beth-Shemesh, and elsewhere (see O. Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological
Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines [Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ. Institute of Archaeology,
1976], 42-56, nos. 1441, 1443, 1446, 1447, 1450). See further the discussions of W. Herrmann,
“El,” DDD, 274-80; and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41-66. Note the debate over El
as primarily an Aramean god between I. Kottsieper, “El — ein aramäischer Gott? — Eine Antwort,”
BN 94 (1998): 87-98, and C. Maier and J. Tropper, “El — ein aramáischer Gott,” BN 93 (1998): 77-
88, who reject this thesis of Kottsieper. For further discussion of the divine assembly in Canaanite
and Israelite tradition, see chapter 3, section 5.

208

Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 21) argues that ‘Im is an epithet especially appropriate to
El. The evidence is quite restricted, however. El’s wisdom is called 'm “Im, “for eternity” (KTU 1.3
V 31; 1.4 IV 42). The related word, "//mn, in KTU 1.1 V 5 may refer to El, but the context is too
broken to provide confirmation. Cross interprets the occurrence of '/m in KTU 1.108.1 also as a title
of El. The first line of the text presents rp 'u mlk ‘Im and the second line calls this figure "i7. Cross
regards 'i/ in line 2 as El and not generically as “god,” and identifies rp’u m/k “Im with El. For the
problems underlying this interpretation, see chapter 5, sections 2 and 3. The term "Im is an epithet
suitable also to Ugaritic deities other than El. Baal’s kingship is called 7m in KTU 1.2 IV 10. The
phrase zb1 mlk "llmy in KTU 1.22 I 10 is problematic. The word Jm appears to be a form of * Im,
“eternal one” (R. M. Good, “Geminated Sonants, Word Stress, and Energic in -nn/.nn in Ugaritic,”
UF 13 [1981]: 118-19). Where BH “0/ám appears with other elements of imagery attested for El in
the Ugaritic texts, the BH use of ’6/am may be traced back to El.

209

For further discussions of ‘ab snm as “father of years,” see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 32-33;
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 16 n. 24; Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite
Literature,” 555; E. Ullendorff, “Ugaritic Marginalia IV,” El 14 (1978 = H. L. Ginsberg Volume):
23*. The title, 'ab $nm, has been interpreted in other ways for two reasons. First, the plural of years
is otherwise expressed by the feminine form snt. In this case the use of the masculine plural is a
frozen form. Second, ¿nm appears in KTU 1.114.18-19 as the second element in the double-name of
the divine personage, tkmn w-snm, who accompanies El, stricken with severe drunkenness, to his
home. This role is treated as a filial duty in 1.17 1 31-32. Therefore, it has been inferred that tkmn w-
snm is a son of El and that El’s title, ‘ab snm, refers to El’s paternity of this figure. For these
alternative views, see ANET, 129 n. 1; C. H. Gordon, “El, Father of sum,” JNES 35 (1976): 261-62;
J. Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 235, esp. n.
201; A. Jirku, *S$nm (Schunama) der Sohn des Gottes 'Il," ZAW 82 (1970): 278-79; J. C. de Moor,
"Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra L" UF 1 (1969): 79; Pope, El in the
Ugaritic Texts, 33, 61, 81.

210

For surveys of the terminology of the divine council in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and
Hebrew, see E. T. Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature , HSM 24
(Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980); A. Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 431-
41.

211

See D. V. Edelman, “Tracking Observance of the Aniconic Tradition Through Numismatics,” in The
Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D. V. Edelman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1996), 185-225, esp. 190-204, with drawings of the coin’s two sides on p. 225.

212

The language describing the Ugaritic divine court includes many further elements derived from
royal realia of the second millennium. Royal treaty terminology for tribute (‘argmn) and royal gifts
from an inferior king to a superior king (mnh) appear in KTU 1.2 I 37- 38 (cf. KTU 3.1.24-25;
4.91.1). The language of ‘bd, literally “slave,” but in the context of an inferior to a superior, a
“servant,” appears also in KTU 1.2 I 36 and 1.5 II 12 (cf. PRUIV, p. 49, line 12; 2 Sam. 16:7; see J.
C. Greenfield, “Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology in the Bible," Fourth World Congress of
Jewish Studies: Papers, vol. 1 [Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967], 117-19; F. C.
Fensham, “Notes on Treaty Terminology in Ugaritic Epics,” UF 11 [1979]: 265-74; A. Rainey, The
Scribe of Ugarit [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1969], 141-42). The use
of bfas a title of Yamm in KTU 1.2 1 17-19//33-35 and Mot in 1.5 II 12 reflects the diplomatic title
for a superior king (3.1.26). The messengers’ insistence on having Baal’s gold (pd) in 1.2 1 19//35
reflects a routine demand from one monarch to the king whom he is besieging (cf. KTU 1.3 III 46-
47; | Kings 20:2-4; for the interpretation of pd, see del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 609). The
protocols of messengers and their presentations of their messages reflect the language of royal
international correspondence. The formulas introducing Yamm’s message in 1.2 I 16//33 are
common in royal letters. For further discussion of these parallels, see J. F. Ross, “The Prophet as
Yahweh’s Messenger,” Israels Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B.
W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper, 1962), 98-107 (reprinted in Prophecy in Israel:
Search for an Identity, ed. D. L. Petersen, Issues in Religion and Theology 10 (Philadelphia:
Fortress; London: SPCK, 1987, 112-21). Similarly, /ht, etymologically derived from “tablet,” means
“message,” in both human and divine passages (1.2 I 26; see D. Pardee, “A New Ugaritic Letter,”
BiOr 34 [1977], 7-8) and not “insult” or the like (for this view, see del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas,
571-72). Other terminology within descriptions of the heavenly court appear to have derived
directly from a royal setting. Baal’s approach to El bAnt, “with his graciousness” in KTU 1.17 I 16
has been modeled on the act of intercession before the king in the Ugaritic court. In a secular
setting, one person asks another to “intercede for me before the king” (KTU 2.15.3; cf. KAI 10:9-
10). On this comparison, see J. W. Watts, “H. nt: An Ugaritic Formula of Intercession,” UF
21 (1989): 443-49.
213

M. Brettler, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, JSOTSup 76 (Sheffield: JSOT,
1989), 102-9. Professor Brettler suggested the formulation regarding the mashit. On aspects of the
divine council in the prophetic literature, see J. S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of

Israel,” HTR 63 (1970): 29-51 (reprinted in Prophecy in Israel: Search for an Identity, ed. D. L.
Petersen, 122-43).

214

See the view of R. de Vaux and B. Mazar that the Philistine mashitim in 1 Sam. 13:5, 31:2 may be
characterized as mobile strike-forces; cited in P. Machinist, “Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and
Israelite History,” in The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. E. D. Oren, University
Museum Monograph 108, University Museum Symposium Series 11 (Philadelphia: The University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 2000), 58, 71 n. 29. See further p. 123 n. 64 below.

215
Brettler, God Is King, 106-7, 109.
216

See A. L. Oppenheim, ““The Eyes of the Lord,”” JAOS 88 (1968): 173-80; C. L. Meyers and E. M.
Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, AB 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 184; P. L. Day, An
Adversary in Heaven: satan in the Hebrew Bible, HSM 43 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988), 39-43;
Brettler, God Is King, 105, 109. On the satan, see further N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the
Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1987), 107-23.

217

J. Teixidor, review of The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary, by J. A.
Fitzmyer, JAOS 87 (1967): 634; cf. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 42.

218

See Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 25-54; idem, “Ups and Downs in El's Amours,” UF 11 (1979 =
C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift): 701-8; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 13-43; P. D. Miller,
“Aspects of the Religion of Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion; Essays in Honor of Frank Moore
Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 55; Greenfield, *The Hebrew Bible
and Canaanite Literature," 547-48. For El and Baal as coregents, see PE 1.10.31 (Attridge and
Oden, Philo of Byblos, 54-55). Compatibility between El and Baal is likewise evident in KTU 1.15
II and 1.17 I-II.

219
ANET, 519.
220

Studies of El's abode include: Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 62-72; idem, “The Scene on the
Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, 393-
405; O. Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ugarit, Aegypten und Israel, BZAW 80
(Berlin: Töpelmann, 1961), 42-56; E. Lipiriski, “El's Abode: Mythological Traditions related to Mt.
Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia,” OLP 2 (1971): 13-69; R. J. Clifford, “The Tent of El
and the Israelite Tent of Meeting," CBQ 33 (1971): 221-27; idem, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan
and the Old Testament, HSM 4 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972), 35-37; Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 36-39; idem, “The Priestly Tabernacle in Light of Recent
Research,” in Temple and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor
of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 14-16 March
1977 (Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), 177-78; P. K.
McCarter, “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,” ATR 66 (1973): 403- 12; Mullen, The Divine
Council, 128-68; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their
Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies,
Jerusalem, 16-21 August 1981 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, Perry Foundation for
Biblical Research, 1983), 103-4; M. S. Smith, “Mt. Z/ in KTU 1.2 I 19-20,” UF 18 (1986): 458;
Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 548, 554. See also the important
contribution by D. E. Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” VT 50
(2000): 485-98. The new Mari evidence discussed by Fleming adds to the cultural background of
El’s tent and the tent-shrine (tabernacle) of Yahweh. A number of commentators (e.g., Cross,
Clifford, Greenfield, Mullen) identify El’s abode with the seat of the divine council in Ugaritic
tradition. Iconography on a seal from Mari perhaps bolsters this identification (A. Vanel,
L'Iconographie du Dieu de l'Orage dans le Proche-Orient Ancien jusqu'à Vlle Siécle avant J.-C.,
CRB 7 [Paris: Gabalda, 1965], 73-74; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near
Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms [New York: Seabury, 1978], fig. 42). O. Keel
describes the scene: The seal depicts “a god of the type of El enthroned, between the spring of two
streams, on a mountain. He is flanked by two vegetation goddesses who grow out from the waters.
A fourth figure, a warlike god, appears thrusting into the stream with a spear” (“Ancient Seals and
the Bible,” JAOS 106 [1986]: 309). This seal apparently combines at least two scenes that are
distinguished in the Baal cycle. El in his abode and Baal piercing the waters constitute two separate
mythologems or mythological scenes. Discrepancies in the Ugaritic descriptions of the two caution
against an identification of the settings of El’s abode and the divine council, at least for Ugaritic
tradition (Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 69), if not for Canaanite tradition generally — although
Ugaritic literature may assume the identification without expressing it explicitly. If the two were not
identified in Ugaritic literature or Canaanite literature generally, the conflation of the scene of the
divine council with the heavenly abode as found in biblical tradition would belong to a point in
Canaanite literary tradition later than the Ugaritic literary texts. On the traditions of El and his
waters at Hierapolis, see H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden, The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria)
Attributed to Lucian, Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 9, Graeco-Roman
Religion Series 1 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 4, 8 n. 14; Oden, Studies, 32-33, 124-26, 142.
For Mesopotamian iconography of the waters flowing from the vase held by Ea/Enki, see E. D. van
Buren, The Flowing Vase and the God with Streams (Berlin: Hans Schoetz und Co., GMBH,
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1933), 9-10; idem, Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art, AnOr 23
(Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1945), 131-33.

221
Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 554.
222

See ANET, 519. On this title, see P. D. Miller, Jr., “El, the Creator of the Earth,” BASOR 239 (1980):
43-46. For the Luvian correspondences for this title, see E. Laroche, “Études sur les Hieroglyphes
Hittites,” Syria 31 (1954): 102-3. Cf. Asherah’s Ugaritic title, gnyt "ilm, *creatress of the gods," and
Dagan's title at Emar, EN qu-u-ni, “lord of creation” (Emar 373:88’, 379:5’, 381:15 and 382:16; my
thanks go to Mr. Douglas Green for bringing these references to my attention).

223

P. C. Craigie, “El brt. El dn (RS 24. 278, 14-15),” UF 5 (1973): 278-79; Cross, Canaanite Myth and
Hebrew Epic, 39, 44; K. A. Kitchen, “Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant,” UF 11 (1979): 458;
Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,’ 408, 416; Stager, “The Fortress-Temple,”
239,

224
Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 38.
225

See R. Boling, Judges, AB 6A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 180. The complex tradition
history surrounding the cult of Shechem perhaps points also to its antiquity (see G. E. Wright,
Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965], 123-58; L. Toombs
and G. E. Wright, “The Fourth Campaign at Balatah (Shechem),” BASOR 169 [1963]: 28, 30; L.
Toombs, “Shechem: Problems of the Early Israelite Era,” in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth
Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975), ed. F. M.
Cross [Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979], 69-83). The peaceful
relationship between the Israelites and Shechemites in Josh. 24:25- 26 has spawned theories
positing an early emergence of Israel in the vicinity of Shechem. Genesis 34 depicts a violent period
in the early relationships between the clan of Jacob and the natives of Shechem. The history of
relations between the various members of the population was undoubtedly complex. See A. de Pury,
"Genése XXXIV et l'histoire," RB 71 (1969): 5-49; A. Lemaire, “Asriel, sr 2. Israel et l‘origine de
la conféderation Israelite,” VT 23 (1973): 239-43; idem, “Les Bené Jacob: Essai d’interprétation
historique d'une tradition patriarcale," RB 85 (1978): 321-37; cf. de Vaux, The Early History of
Israel, 800-804; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 84, 88, 164, 172, 176; G. W. Ahlstróm,
“Another Moses Tradition,” JNES 39 (1980): 65- 69, esp. 66; idem, Who Were the Israelites? 40,
66-70; and Halpern, The Emergence, 81-94, 228. Because at Shechem no destruction levels can be
dated to the time shortly before 1200 and continuous repair of Late Bronze Age fortifications into
the Iron I period are attested, Ahlstróm argues that the Shechemite kingdom of Labayu known from
the Amarna letters continued down through Gideon's time. The archaeological evidence, especially
from surveys, could be wedded to such a theory; see I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Period
of the Settlement and Judges (Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad, 1986) (Heb.); idem, 'Izbet Sartah:
An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha “ayin, Israel, BAR International Series 299 (Oxford: BAR,
1986), esp. 205-13; idem, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement; B. Mazar, “The Early
Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country,” BASOR 241 (1981): 75-85; Stager, “The Archaeology of
the Family in Ancient Israel,” 24, and “The Fortress-Temple,” 228-49,

226
B. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49,” CBQ 17 (1955): 12 n. 40.
227

A. S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: Gad, 1952), 64-93; Pope, El in the
Ugaritic Texts, 32, 35-42.

228
On these passages, see Boling, Judges, 30, 74; Soggin, Judges, 39, 41-44, 45.
229

For Judg. 18:30, read “Moses” instead of MT “Manasseh” (for the evidence of the versions and
rabbinic sources, see D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l'Ancien Testament, 2 vols., OBO 50/1
[Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 1.115-16). See the
discussion of S. Weitzman, “Reopening the Case of the Suspiciously Suspended Nun in Judges
18:30,” CBQ 61 (1999): 429-47. On Judges 18, see Soggin, Judges, 276-78; D. G. Schley, Shiloh: A
Biblical City in Tradition and History, JSOTSup 63 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988). On the function of
related phrases in Judges, see B. S. Childs, *A Study of the Formula, “Until This Day,”” JBL 82

(1963): 272-92; B. O. Long, “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography,” JBL 106 (1987):
397-98.

230

On this cycle, see W. Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des ‘Retterbuches’ in der deuteronomischen
Epoche, BBB 21 (Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1964), 65-68; A. Malamat, “Charismatic Leadership in Early
Israel,” in Magnalia Dei, The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory
of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1976), 155; A. D. H. Mayes, “The Period of the Judges and the Rise of the Monarchy,”
in Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1977), 290; Soggin, Judges, 43-44; Ahlstr6m, Who Were the Israelites? 75; Halpern, The First
Historians, 121-43; and M. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics,” JBL 108 (1989):
395-418.

231

Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1956),
160; idem, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 42; idem,
Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 199-200, esp. n. 101; Ringgren, Israelite Religion , 44; J. A.
Emerton, “Gideon and Jerubbaal,” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 289- 312; U.
Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and Baʻal in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 179.
For an attempt to compare the element *bôšet in these names with Akkadian baštu, “dignity, pride,
honor,” see M. Tsevat, “Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and Their Study,” Hebrew Union
College Annual 34 (1975): 71-87; for criticisms of this position, see P. K. McCarter, ZI Samuel, AB
9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 84-85. The view of Tsevat has received new support from
G. J. Hamilton, “New Evidence for the Authenticity of bšt in Hebrew Personal Names and for Its
Use as a Divine Epithet in Biblical Texts,” CBQ 60 (1998): 228- 50. See further S. Schorch,
Euphemismen in der Hebräischen Bibel, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 12 (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2000), 78 n. 201. Assuming Hamilton’s view of the origins of the *bšt element is
correctly “protective spirit,” it remains possible that it was secondarily understood in these contexts
as “shame.”

232
See Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 359-60.

233
Ahlström, “Another Moses Tradition,” 65-69.

234
See Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 113, 207 n. 62; idem, The Biblical Period, 38;
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 8 n. 10; cf. Oldenburg, The Conflict, 181 n. 4. For textual
and philological discussions of the names, see McCarter, II Samuel, 82, 85-87, 124- 25, 128. See n.
77 above.

235
N. Avigad, “Hebrew Seals and Sealings and Their Significance for Biblical Research,” in Congress
Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 8.

236
Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 44.

231

See chapter 2, section 2. It is possible that the application of storm-imagery (in the rain storm) was
secondary to Yahweh, who after all is said to derive from Midian/Teiman/Paran, a region not
particularly known for its rain-storms. See Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism , 145-46. If
correct, the application of storm-imagery, made under the appropriation of Baal imagery, would still
be quite early, probably premonarchic. J. Day (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 91-
116) has stressed the secondary appropriation of Baal imagery by Yahweh.

238
Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 44.
239

See chapter 2, section 1.
240

For this point, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 35-36.
241

See chapter 3, section 3.
242

Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 12-17; Freedman, ““Who Is Like Thee Among

the Gods?” The Religion of Early Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank
Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 324-25; O'Connor, Hebrew
Verse Structure, 177-78. For the question of the etymology of $adday, see Albright, “The Names
Shaddai and Abram,” JBL 54 (1935): 173-204; Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 22; Cross, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic, 52-56; and references in n. 50 above.

243

Many emendations have been proposed for these verses. For the text-critical issues, see Vawter,
“The Canaanite Background,” 16; Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 75-76,
91-92 nn. 78-83. In v. 24a, MT understands Joseph as the referent (so RSV, New Jewish Publication
Society version; cf. NAB), but many commentators take Joseph’s enemies as the referent (so
O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 177). This translation emends MT gaberú to gibbór and MT
hóray to haréré in v. 26. In the attempt to make birkot ‘abika gabérá more consistent with the
customary interpretation of birköt Sadayim waraham as an expression of natural fertility, some
commentators emend the former expression to birköt 'abib wegib ‘öl (e.g., E. A. Speiser, Genesis,
AB I [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], 369-70); there is no text-critical basis for this change.
The blessings of w. 25b-26a are translated as syntactically dependent on wibarekekka. It is possible
to read them as the subject of the verb in v. 26b (so O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 177).

244

I am not inclined to separate the semantics of ‘abirl’abbir, as N. Sarna maintains (Sarna, The JPS
Torah Commentary. Genesis "2 [Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication
Society, 1989], 343, 372 n. 49), based on Sarna’s early study, “The Divine Title ”abhir ya'ágóbh,'^
in Essays on the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of Dropsie University [Philadelphia: Dropsie
Univ. Press, 1979], 389-98). For ‘abir as “bull,” see P. D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in
Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 11 (1979): 177-86; see also Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 4-
5, n. 6.

245
On ‘ly as an epithet, see chapter 2, section 2.
246
Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 16-17.
247
See rhmt for “young women” also in the Mesha stele (KAI 181:17). For discussion, see P.
Bordreuil, *A propos de l'Inscription de Mesha’ deux notes,” in The World of the Arameans II:

Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugéne Dion, ed. P. M. Michele Daviau, J.
W. Wevers, and M. Weigl, JSOTSup 326 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),158-61.

248

On KTU 1.23, see Pope, “Mid Rock and Scrub: A Ugaritic Parallel to Exodus 7:19," in Biblical and
Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of W. S. Lasor, ed. G. Tuttle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1978), 146-50; del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 427-48; R. Ratner and B. Zuckerman, ““A Kid in
Milk’?: New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14,” Hebrew Union College Annual 57 (1986): 15-60.
The reconstruction of ['agzr ym bn] is suggested by the parallel phrases in lines 58-59 and 61. The
pairing of 'atrt wrhm in line 13 and "atrt wrhmy in line 28 is the basis for the reconstruction of line
24b.

249

For interpretations of št, see del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 633-34. See further P. Merlo, “Uber
die Ergänzung ,<št> in KTU 1.23:59,” UF 28 (1996): 491-94.

250

BDB, 800; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 185; H. L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite
Myth of Anath and Aqhat,” BASOR 97 (1945): 9; Oden, Studies, 80; J. M. Hadley, “The Fertility of
the Flock? The De-Personalization of Astarte in the Old Testament,” in On Reading Prophetic
Texts: Gender-Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, ed. B.
Becking and M. Dijkstra (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 115-33.

25l
See B. A. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17 (1963): 105-11.
252

The authenticity of this invocation has been doubted (so Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,
85; cf. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 175).

253
Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61.
254

For a picture of the stand, see A. E. Glock, *Taanach," EAEHL 4:1142. For a detailed discussion of
the stand, see R. Hestrin, “The Cult Stand from Ta‘anach and Its Religious Background,” in Studia
Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C., Proceedings of
the Conference Held in Leuven 14-16 November 1985, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 22 (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987), 62-77. Tigay (You Shall Have No Other Gods, 92-
93) argues for the Caananite provenience of the stand. J. G. Taylor argues that the stand is Israelite
and that Asherah is depicted in registers 2 and 4 and Yahweh in registers 1 and 3. (“Yahweh and
Asherah at Tenth Century Taanach,” Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies 37/38 [1987]: 16-18; “The Two
Earliest Representations of Yahweh,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory
of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup 67 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1988], 557-66).
For assessments, see Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 169-76; and Miller,
The Religion of Ancient Israel, 43-45. See also the important study of P. Beck, “The Cult-Stands
from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine,”
in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. I.
Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi/Israel Exploration Society;
Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994), 352- 81. For further discussion of the
iconography of this stand, see also below chapter 2, section 2; chapter 3, section 4; chapter 4,
section 3. For archaeological discussion of Taanach in the Iron Age, see Finkelstein, Archaeology of
the Israelite Settlement, 88-89.

255

Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 62, 97-98. On solar language, see chapter 4.
256

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 157 n. 52; cf. 163.
257

The dating of Deuteronomy 33 varies significantly. Scholars arguing for a premonarchic date
include 1. L. Seeligman, “A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times,” VT 14 (1964): 90; Cross, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic, 123; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 90-92. H. Seebass argues
for a Davidic setting for the poem (“Die Stémmeliste von Dtn XXXII,” VT 27 [1977]: 158-69). Von
Rad (Deuteronomy, 208) dates Deuteronomy 33 to the ninth or early eighth century. Other scholars
who propose an eighth-century dating include Mayes, Deuteronomy, 397; G. A. Smith, The Book of
Deuteronomy, The Cambridge Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1918), 361; C.
Steuenagel, Das Deuteronomium, Göttingen Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Góttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 173; and R. Tournay, “Le Psaume et les Benedictions de Möise
(Deutéronome, XXXII,” RB 65 (1958): 208. The later dates proposed for the formation of the
chapter do not preclude an earlier date for w. 26-27.

258

In view of the evidence pertaining to the conflation of El and Baal between the Ugaritic sources and
the earliest biblical traditions, it may be queried whether the Israelite traditions created the
conflation of divine imagery or inherited it (see the discussions of Genesis 49 in sections 4 and 5).
Such a question is impossible to answer unless the character of Yahweh prior to contact with El or
Baal (if there was any such period) can be determined. In the oldest Israelite traditions describing
the march of the divine warrior, Yahweh appears primarily as a storm deity with El epithets. Despite
some scholarly claims to the contrary (see P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, HSM 5
[Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973], 48-58; J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic
Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III [Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972], 95-96 n. 233), El is not attested clearly as a warrior figure in the extant
textual material. If the approach taken in this section is correct, it would serve to explain the
fundamental compatibility of Yahweh with Baal during the Judges period and the early monarchy
(see chapter 2).

259
See chapter 2, section 2.
260
Regarding the date and function of Psalm 18, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 158-59.
261
Scholars differ whether “elyón was originally an epithet of El or a secondary accretion to El (see
Gen. 14:18). On this issue, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 50-52; cf. R. Rendtorff,
“The Background of the Title "7? in Gen xiv,” in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers,
vol. 1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 167-70. PE 1.10.15 differentiates beween
El and Elioun (‘elyén), but this may represent a Hellenistic attempt to imitate classical accounts (for

text and translation, see Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 46-47). For further discussion, see
Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 55-57.

262
See above, section 2.
263
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 186.
264
Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 551-54.
265

P. D. Miller, “Israelite Religion,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. D. A.
Knight and G. M. Tucker (Philadelphia: Fortress; Decatur, GA: Scholars,1985), 212. On Israel’s
aniconic requirement, see W. W. Hallo, “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King,” in
Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 54-66; Halpern,
“Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,”’ 82, 83, 100, 101, 109-10 nn. 25-26; R. S. Hendel, “The Social
Origins of the Aniconic Tradition in Early Israel,” CBQ 50 (1988): 365-82; T. Mettinger, “The Veto
on Images and the Aniconic God in Ancient Israel,” in Religious Symbols and Their Functions, ed.
H. Biezais (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1979), 15-29. Concerning “other gods,”
especially within the context of the Ten Commandments, see Childs, The Book of Exodus, 403-4.
See discussion on pp. xvi-xvii; chapter 3, section 3; chapter 6, section 1.

266

See the important study of T. N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient
Near Eastern Context, ConBOT 42 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995). See the responses in
The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the
Ancient Near East, ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21
(Leuven: Peeters, 1997); and T. J. Lewis, “Divine Images: Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118
(1998): 36-53. Based on the lack of divine images in what are plausibly identified as Israelite sites,
R. S. Hendel would argue for aniconism as a feature that distinguishes early Israel from Canaanite
culture; see Hendel, “The Social Origins of the Aniconic Tradition in Early Israel,” 367-68, and his
review of The Early History of God, in CBQ 54 (1992): 132-33. Other scholars locate aniconism
considerably later. See B. B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing

Texts,” pp. 75-105, and Edelman, “Tracking Observance of the Aniconic Tradition Through
Numismatics.”

267
See n. 50 above.
268
See above, section 2.
269
Besides the underworld streams in Job 28, Greenfield (“The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite
Literature,” 556) notes two other Ugaritic motifs clustered in Job 28, the references in w. 14 and 22

to Yamm and Mot, both called the “beloved of El” in Ugaritic literature, and the larger issue of the
location of wisdom, a feature of EI in Ugaritic mythology. On El’s abode, see above.

210

A. J. Wensinck, The Ocean in the Literatures of the Western Semites (Amsterdam: Johannes Muller,
1918), 4-49; T. H. Gaster, “Dead, Abode of the,” IDB 1:787.

271

J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885;
reprinted, New York: Meridian Books, 1957; reprinted, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973), 440;
Cross, cited in Halpern, The Emergence, 102; Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,’” 79, 84.

272

Jackson, “Ammonite Personal Names in the Context of the West Semitic Onomasticon,” in The
Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His
Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O‘Connor, American Schools of Oriental Research
Special Volume Series No. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 518. See further L. M.
Muntingh, “What Did the Ammonites” Deities Mean to Them? The Concept of Deity as Revealed in
Ammonite Personal Names,” in “Feet on Level Ground”: A South African Tribute of Old Testament
Essays in Honor of Gerhard Hasel, ed. K. van Wyk (Berrien Center, MI: Hester, 1996), 193-300. W.
E. Aufrecht interprets the name ‘nmwt as the root “‘ny plus the divine name Mot, “Death” (“The
Ammonite Language of the Iron Age,” BASOR 266 [1987]: 92). Concerning the limitations on
using names to reconstruct religion, see introduction.

273

Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age, HSM 27 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1973), 95-98;
idem, “Ammonite Personal Names,” 518. On mlkm in inscriptions, see also N. Avigad, “Some
Decorated West Semitic Seals,” JEJ 35 (1985): 5. See further E. Puech, “Milcom,” DDD, 575-76.

274
See Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 19 n. 60.
275

On Chemosh, see H. P. Müller, “Chemosh,” DDD, 186-89. See also W. Aufrecht and W. D. Shury,
“Three Iron Age Seals: Moabite, Aramaic and Hebrew,” [EJ 47 (1997): 58. See also U. Worschech,
“Der Gott Kemosch. Versuch einer Characterisierung,” UF 24 (1992): 393-401. On the historical
circumstances of Chemosh in Moabite history, see N. Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of
the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 47 (1997): 83-92. For the broader context of culture in Moab, see S.
Timm, Moab zwischen den Machten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten, Agypten und
Altes Testament 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989). Cf. K. van Wyk, Squatters in Moab: A Study
in Iconography, History, Epigraphy, Orthography, Ethnography, Religion and Linguistics of the
ANE (Berrien Center, MI: Louis Hester, 1996); see the critical review of W. Aufrecht, CBQ 60
(1998): 132-34. For Moabite figurines, see U. Worschech, “Pferd, Góttin und Stier: Funde zur
moabitischen Religion aus el-Balü (Jordanien),” UF 24 (1992): 385-91.

276

See the El and Baal PNs listed for Moabite seals in M. Heltzer, “The Recently Published West
Semitic Inscribed Stamp Seals,” UF 31 (1999): 216-17.

277

See E. A. Knauf, *Q6s," DDD, 674-77. For a useful survey of what is known about Moab, see BA
60/4 (1997).

278

See I. Beit-Arieh and B. Cresson, “An Edomite Ostracon from Horvat *Uza," TA 12 (1985): 96-100;
C. M. Bennett, “Fouilles d'Umm el-Biyara,” RB 73 (1966): 400; B. Oded, “Egyptian References to
the Edomite Deity Qaus,” Andrew University Seminary Studies 9 (1971): 47- 50; T. C. Vriezen,
“The Edomitic Deity Qaus,”’ Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965): 330-53. For Josephus,
Antiquities 15.253, see R. Marcus, Josephus, vol. 8, Jewish Antiquities, Books 15-17, Loeb Classical
Library (London: W. Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1963), 118-19.

279
P. Beck, “A Head of a Goddess from Qitmit,” Oadmoniot 19 (1986): 79-81.
280

See van der Toorn, Family Religion, 281-86; and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 145-
46. See above, pp. 25, 32-33.

281

On Baal Shamem, see chapter 2, section 1. The goddess, Arbt b ‘It gbl, “the Dame, the Lady of
Byblos” (KAI 10:2,3,7,15), is known in the second millennium as “NIN $a URU gu-ubla (EA 68:4),
4NIN Sa URU gub-la (EA 73:3-4, 74:2-30), etc. (see Hess, “Divine Names,” 151). For the divine
title b “t in the proto-Sinaitic inscription 347, see Albright, The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their
Decipherment (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1966), 17; Cross, “The Early Alphabetic
Inscriptions from Sinai and Their Development,” BASOR 110 (1948): 6- 22; idem, “Origin and
Early Evolution,” 8*-24*. She has been identified with either Astarte or Asherah. The identification
of “the Lady of Byblos” with Astarte is founded on inferences drawn from classical sources.
According to Plutarch (De /side et Osiride, para. 15, 3), the queen of Byblos is called Astarte
according to some (J. G. Griffiths, Plutarch s De Iside et Osiride [n.p.: University of Wales; printed
at Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970], 140-41). An identification of Astarte as the goddess
of Byblos might be inferred also from the description of Aphrodite at Byblos in De Dea Syria, para.
6 (Attridge and Oden, De Dea Syria, 13). Aphrodite is equated with Astarte in other sources, such
as PE 1.10.32 (Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 54-55). Cross (“Origin and Early Evolution of
the Alphabet,” 8°; Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28-29 n. 90) and R. A. Oden (“Ba‘al Shamem
and ’El,” CBQ 39 [1977]: 460) argue for an identification of the b "Jt gb/ with Asherah, largely based
on common functions, but it is possible that Astarte exercised these functions in first-millennium
Phoenicia. J. W. Betlyon (The Coinage and Mints of Phoenicia: The Pre-Alexandrine Period, HSM
26 [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980], 115, 139-40) argues for a syncretism of features of the three great
goddesses in the “lady of Byblos.” For Astarte at Ashkelon, see 1 Sam. 31:10. Herodotus, History
1.105 (A. D. Godley, Herodotus, vol. 1, books 1 and 2, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Press; William Heinemann, 1920], 136-37) refers to the “temple of Aphrodite Ourania” in
Ashkelon, a reference to Astarte. Olyan (“Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen
of Heaven,” UF 19 [1987]: 168-69) has noted an inscription from Delos where Aphrodite Ourania is
identified with Astarte of Palestine: “To the heavenly Zeus and to Astarte of Palestine/Aphrodite of
the Heavens, gods with hearing,” Dii Ourioi kai Astartei Palaistinei Aproditei Ouraniai theois
epekoois (P. Rouseel and M. Launey, Inscriptions de Delos, 2 vols. [Paris: Honore Champion,
1937], no. 2305). Inscription no. 1719 reads similarly with some restoration. There is no evidence
for the names of Asherah and Anat on the Phoenician mainland. For further discussion, see E.
Lipinski, Dieux et déesses de l'univers phenicien et puniques, Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 64
(Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters/& Departement Oosterse Studies, 1995), 70-76; C. Bonnet, Astarté:
Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques, Contributi all Storia della Religione Fenicio-
Punica II, Collezione di Studi Fenici 37 (Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1996), 19-30.

282
Concerning b '/ 'dr, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 64-68. See also F. M. Cross, “A
Recently Published Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Period from Byblos," /EJ 29 (1979): 41,
43; and Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 88-89, 261-62, 418.

283
For Astarte at Sidon, see also De Dea Syria, para. 4 (see Attridge and Oden, De Dea Syria, 13); cf.
1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13. For discussion and further primary sources, see Lipinski, Dieux et

deesses, 128-54; Bonnet, Astarté, 30-36. Claims for Asherah as a Sidonian goddess during the
Persian period are circumstantial. J. W. Betlyon (“The Cult of ’A8erah/’Elat at Sidon,” JNES 44
[1985]: 53-56) argues that the title of "7t sr; *goddess of Tyre,” appearing on Sidonian coins points
to a cult of Asherah since ‘/t is best attested as an epithet of Asherah in the Ugaritic texts, though
not exclusively (see above, n. 32). An epithet as general as ’/t perhaps applied to the main goddess
of a locality. Astarte is clearly the most important goddess of Persian-period Sidon. Similarly, rb¢,
an epithet applied in the Ugaritic texts for Asherah, is attributed to Astarte in the Persian-period
Phoenician inscriptions from Sidon and elsewhere (see chapter 3, section 4). There is no attestation
to Asherah either separately or as the theophoric element in proper names from Sidon. In contrast,
Astarte is attested in proper names (see Betlyon, The Coinage and Mints, 3-20). On Eshmun, see S.
Ribichini, “Eshmun,” DDD, 306-9; and P. Xella, “Les plus anciens temoignages sur le dieu
Eshmoun: Un mise au point,” in The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and
Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugéne Dion, ed. P. M. Michele Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M.
Weigl, JSOTSup 325 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 230-42; and “Eshmun von Sidon:
Der phónizische Aklepios,” in Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica: Festschrift fur Kurt Bergerhof zur
Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, AOAT
(Kevalaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 481-98.

284

For Astarte at Tyre, see the treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal II of Tyre (A4NET, 534), the late classical
witnesses of PE 1.10.32 (Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 54-55) and Josephus, Antiquities
8.146 (H. St.J. Thackeray and R. Marcus, Josephus, vol. 5, Jewish Antiquities, Books 5-8, Loeb
Classical Library [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1934], 650-
51) and Contra Apionem 1.118, 123 (Thackeray, Josephus: The Life, Against Apion, Loeb Classical
Library [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1926], 210-13).
According to Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.123; Thackeray, Josephus: The Life, 224-25), King
Ethbaal was a priest of Astarte. Astarte appears as the theophoric element in proper names from
Tyre (J. B. Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known Through
Literature [New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1943], 71). Her name appears also as an
element in Tyrian royal names recorded in Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.157; H. St.J. Thackeray,
Josephus: The Life, 224-25). For Hellenistic and Roman evidence for Astarte at Tyre, see H. Seyrig,
“Antiquités syriennes,” Syria 40 (1963): 19-28. For an overview, see Bonnet, Astarté, 37-44.

285

M. L. Barré, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983), 48-49. However, see the critique by K. van der Toorn, “Anat-
Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen 39 (1992): 80-101.

286

For discussion of these deities, see B. Peckham, “Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The
Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P.
D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 80-81. See also the references in nn. 128 and 129
above.

287

For secondary literature up to 1975, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,”
350-52; see also M. H. Pope, “Baal Worship,” EncJud 4:7-12; R. Rendtorff, “El, Ba‘al und Jahwe:
Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion,” ZAW 78 (1966):277-
92; E. Gaál, “Tuthmosis III as Storm-God?” Studia Aegyptica 3 (1977):29-37; D. Kinet, Ba “al und
Jahwe: Ein Beitragzur Theologie des Hoseabuches, Europaische Hochschulschriften 23/87
(Frankfurt/Bern: Lang, 1977); A. Saviv, “Baal and Baalism in Scripture,” Beth Mikra 29 (1983/84):
128-32 (Heb.). On Baal in sources prior to Ugaritic material, see K. Koch, “Zur Entstehung der
Ba‘al-Verehrung,” UF 11 (1979 = C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift): 465-79; G. Pettinato, “Pre-
Ugaritic Documentation of Ba‘al,” in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. G.
Rendsburg, A. Adler, M. Arfa, and N. H. Winter (New York: KTAV, 1980), 203-9; W. Herrmann,
*Baal," DDD, 132-39; cf. E. Sollberger, Administrative Texts Chiefly Concerning Textiles: L. 2752,
Archiv Reali di Ebla Testi 8 (Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1986), 9-10.

288

See chapter 1, section 3.

289

On the Baal names in the Samaria ostraca, see Pope, “Baal Worship,” 11; R. Lawton, “Israelite
Personal Names on Pre-Exilic Hebrew Inscriptions,” Biblica 65 (1984): 332, 335, 341; I. T.
Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Paleography” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard
University, 1966); idem, “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing,” BA 45
(1982): 229-39; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 65-66. The names are ’bb‘/, “Baal/ lord is
father” (2:4); b‘l’, *Baal/lord? (1:7); b'Izmr, *Baal/lord 1s strong" (or “Baal/lord sings,” 12:2-3);
b'l'zkr, *Baal/lord remembers" (37:3); and mrb'l, *Baal/lord is strong(?)" (2:7); cf. /t]sb 1?) in
Mesad Hashavyahu (see Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 66). On the background of the
ostraca, see also A. F. Rainey, “The Sitz im Leben of the Samaria Ostraca,” TA 6 (1979): 91-94; cf.
W. H. Shea, “Israelite Chronology and the Samaria Ostraca,” ZDPV 101 (1985): 9-20. See also the
Phoenician name b“Iplt from Tel Dan (J. Naveh, “Inscriptions of the Biblical Period,” in Recent
Archaeology in the Land of Israel, ed. H. Shanks and B. Mazar [Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology
Society and Israel Exploration Society, 1985], 64); the Hebrew name blntn (“bel-natan from “ba ‘al-
natan) in an eighth-century Aramaic inscription from Calah (so Albright, “An Ostracon,” 34 n. 15,
35). Albright interprets the theophoric element in this name as a title of Yahweh, but the name
seems to be non-Yahwistic.

290

Pope, “Baal Worship,” 11-12. See also A. Rainey, “The Toponyms of Eretz Israel,” BASOR 231
(1978): 1-17; B. Rosen, “Early Israelite Cultic Centres in the Hill Country,” VT 38 (1988): 114-17.

291

Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 6. For further discussion, see Y. Yadin, “The “House of
Baal’ of Ahab and Jezebel in Samaria, and that of Athalia in Judah,” in Archaeology in the Levant:
Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips,
1978), 127-35; cf. B. Halpern, “‘The Excremental Vision’: The Doomed Priests of Doom in Isaiah
28,” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 117 n. 14. See also H. D. Hoffmann, Reform und
Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichts-schreibung,
AThANT 66 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980), 42-43.

292

Numerous scholars treat the reference to the prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18:19 as a secondary
gloss. See chapter 3, section 1, for discussion.

293

For older discussions, see A. Alt, “Das Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel,” Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel: Zweiter Band (Munich: C. H. Beck‘sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1953),
135-49; K. Galling, “Der Gott Karmel und die Achtung der fremden Gotter,” Geschichte und Altes
Testament, ed. W. F. Albright (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953), 105-26; H. H.
Rowley, “Elijah on Mount Carmel,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 43 (1960-61): 190- 219;
D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Elijah on Mount Carmel,” PEQ 92 (1960): 146-55; Kaufmann, The Religion of
Israel, 273-75; O. Eissfeldt, “Jahve und Baal Kleine Schriften: Erster Band, ed. R. Sellheim and F.
Maass (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1962), 1-12; and Albright, The Biblical Period , 38,
42, 70-71. See also Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 190-94; F. C. Fensham, *A Few
Observations on the Polarization Between Yahweh and Baal in I Kings 17-19,” ZAW 92 (1980):
227-36; Peckham, “Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel,” 80, 87; C. Bonnet, Melgart: Cultes et
Mythes de l'Héraclés & Tyrien en Méditerranée, Studia Phoenicia 8 (Louvain: Uitgeverij
Peeters/Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1988), 139-43; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 8,
38, 62; M. Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie, Ein Beitrag zur religionsgeschichtlichen Ruckfrage nach
dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben, BZAW 281 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999). On
1 Kings 18, see also chapter 3, section 1.

294

Cf. Fensham, “A Few Observations,” 233-34; cf. Bonnet, Melgart, 143.
295

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 190-94.
296

Jezebel's name, ‘izebel, consists of two elements, ’y, “where?” and zebel, “prince” (with distortion
from “zebul; see BDB, 33). For “zb/ in names, see zb/ (P. Mosca and J. Russel, “A Phoenician
Inscription from Cebel Ireis Dagi in Rough Cilicia,” Epigraphica Anatolia 9 [1987J: 1-27), Smzbl,
“name is prince” (KAI 34:4), b‘7’zbl (KAI 67:1-2), and beelzeboul (Mark 3:22; Matt. 12:27; Luke
11:18). For the element “’i in names, cf. 'Tkabód, “where is Glory?” (1 Sam. 4:21), 'ezer, “where
is Help?” (Num. 26:30), ’itamar, “where is Tamar?” (Exod. 6:23, etc.), and ’b‘l, “where is Baal?”
(A. Berthier and R. Charlier, Le Sanctuaire punique d'El-Hofra à Constantine: Texte [Paris: Arts et
Metiers Graphiques, 1955], 106, text 141, line 2).

297

Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 243-44; R. de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near
East, trans. D. McHugh (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 238-51; Bonnet, Melgart, 139-43.
Oden (“Ba‘al Samem and 'EL" 457-73) identifies Baal Shamem with El, which does not comport
with the attestation of Baal Shamem and 7 qn "rs as separate gods in KAI 26 A III 18. For further
criticisms, see Barré, The God-List, 56-57.

298

Eissfeldt, “Jahve und Baal,” 1-12; Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 42, 261; B. Mazar, The Early
Biblical Period: Historical Essays, ed. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 1986), 79-80; Barré, The God-List, 56; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 62- 64; H.
Niehr, “JHWH in der Rolle des BaalSamem,” in Ein Gott allein? ed. W. Dietrich and M. A.
Klopfenstein, 307-26; and W. Róllig, “Baal-Shamem,” DDD, 149-51.

299

See also “Melqart in Tyre” (mlqrt bsr), which appears in a Phoenician inscription (P. Bordreuil,
" Attestations inédité de Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon à Tyr (Nouveaux documents religieux
phéniciens II),” in Religio Phoenicia: Acta Colloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 14 et 15 mensis
Decembris anni 1984, ed. C. Bonnet, E. Lipinski, and P. Marchetti, Studia Phoenicia 4 [Namur:
Société des études classiques, 1986], 77-82). My thanks go to Professor Olyan for bringing this
article to my attention.

300

For the text of Josephus, Antiquities 8.146, see Thackeray and Marcus, Josephus, vol. 5, Jewish
Antiquities, Books 5-8, 650. For details regarding mqm "Im, “the awakener of god(s),” in KAI 44:2,
see de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 247-49; J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian
Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3, Phoenician Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 144-47; Bonnet,
Melqart, 143, 377. Concerning Baal Shamem and Melqart at Tyre in the Hellenistic and Roman
periods, see also Seyrig, "Antiquités syriennes," 19-28. For Greek descriptions of Herakles, see de
Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 247, 250; and Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic
Inscriptions, vol. 3, 145-46. See further the works discussed in n. 15 below.

301

For the motif of the “sleeping god” in ancient Near Eastern literature, see B. Batto, “The Sleeping
God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Biblica 68 (1987): 153-77; T.
McAlpine, Sleep Divine and Human in the Old Testament, JSOTSup 38 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987),
181-90; and A. Mrozek and S. Votto, “The Motif of the Sleeping Divinity,” Biblica 80 (1999):415-
19. If the motifs in 1 Kings 18:27, including the sleeping god, were intended to refer specifically to
Melqart, it is possible that a conflation of the figures Baal Shamem and Melqart lies behind the
portrait of Jezebel's god in 1 Kings 18. For the so-called “dying and rising gods,” see Smith, The
Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 104-31; and T. N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection:
"Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East, ConBOT 50 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International, 2001). Mettinger beautifully surveys the ancient evidence as well as the modern
debate. Mettinger believes that this category has more merit than recent treatments (such as mine)
have considered.

302

Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 52-53.
303

Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 47 n. 95, 56.

304

ANET, 534. On the three baals in the treaty of Esarhaddon, see Barré, The God-List, 50-56. Baal
Saphon appears with Baal Hamon in a Phoenician text dated to the sixth century and originating in
the region of Tyre (Bordreuil, “Attestations inédités,” 82-86).

305

See Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 40-41; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 62. Bull
iconography surviving on Tyrian coins dating to the Persian period (Betlyon, The Coinage and
Mints, 43-44) perhaps constitutes a further element supporting the identification of Baal Shamem as
a storm-god.

306

M. Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel and the God of Baalbek,” IEJ 2 (1952): 121; Oden, “Ba‘al Samem
and 'EL" 464; Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 81 n. 49. For further examples, see Zeus
Heliopolis (see n. 27) and Adonis in Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.21.1 (P. V Davies, Macrobius: The
Saturnalia [New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1969], 141). See also Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.17
(Davies, Macrobius, 114-27).

307

Citing Menander of Ephesus, Josephus (Contra Apionem 2.112-14, 157 [Thackeray, Josephus: The
Life, 210-19, 224-51; cf. Antiquities 8.144-49 [Thackeray and Marcus, Josephus, vol. 5, Antiquities,
Books 5-8, 648-53]).

308

C. F. Nims and R. C. Steiner, “A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic Text in
Demotic Script,” JAOS 103 (1983 = S. N. Kramer Festschrift): 261-74. For a different view of the
relationship between the Demotic version and MT, see Z. Zevit, “The Common Origin of the
Demotic Prayer to Horus and Psalm 20,” JAOS (1990): 213-28.

309

M. Weinfeld, “The Pagan Version of Psalm 20:2-6 — Vicissitudes of a Psalmodic Creation in Israel
and Its Neighbours,” El 18 (1985 = N. Avigad volume): 130-40, 70°; Nims and Steiner, “A
Paganized Version,” 269-72. See further R. Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the
Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the Aramaeans,” in Studea Aramaica: New Sources
and New Approaches; Papers Delivered at the London Conference of the Institute of Jewish Studies
University College London 26th-28th June 1991, ed. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P.
Weitzman with the assistance of V T. Mathias, JSS Supplement 4 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press,
1995), 205-7. For a convenient translation, see R. C. Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic
Script,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W.
W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr. (Leiden/New York/Kóln: Brill, 1997), 309-27.

310
Eissfeldt, “Jahve und Baal,” 1-12.
211.

Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel,” 118-24; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 229- 30; Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 7 n. 13, 8 n. 16; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 62.

312
Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel,” 121.
213

Davies, Macrobius, 151. For text, translation, and notes, see also H. Bornecque, Macrobe: Les
Saturnales, vol. 1, books 1-3 (Paris: Librairie Garnier Freres, 1937), 236-37; J. Willis, Ambrosii
Theodosii Macrobii: Saturnalia (Leipzig: BSB B. G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, 1970), 126. For
1.23.19, see Davies, Macrobius, 152. Cf. 1.17.66-67 (Davies, Macrobius, 126).

ጋ
On the monarchic date of these references, see chapter 1, section 3.
315

Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 34. See further W. M. Schniedewind, “History and
Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book of Kings,” CBQ 55 (1993): 649-61.

316

On the political circumstances surrounding Jehu’s accession and reform, see H. Donner, “The
Separate States of Israel and Judah,” /sraelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M.
Miller, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 407-13; G. W. Ahlstrém, “The Battle of Ramoth-
Gilead in 841 B.C.,” “Wiinschet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the 12th
Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986, ed.
M. Augustin and K. D. Schunk, Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken
Judentums 13 (New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 157-66.

317

So Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ‘Ajrtid: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy,
Museum Catalog 175 (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1978), 19, English section 12-13.

318

J. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D.
McBride, 177, 192 n. 115.

319

F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography (New Haven: American Oriental
Society, 1952), 11-20. On the script of the Kuntillet * Ajrüd inscriptions, see chapter 3, section 3.

320

See F. 1. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 278-
79. The material in Hosea is quite complex literarily; in connection to the question of the references
to Baal in Hosea, see T. Hentrich, “Die Kritik Hoseas an der kanaanáischen Religion. Eine
redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse” (Ph.D. diss., Université de Montreal, 1999).

321

See chapter 1, section 3. On the redactional stage of Hos. 2:21-23, see H. W. Wolff, Hosea: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, trans. G. Stansell, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974), 47; G. A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction
Critical Investigation, SBLDS 102 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 87-88. On Hosea 2, see also M.
A. Freedman, “Israel’s Response in Hosea 2:17b; “You are my Husband,”” JBL 99 (1980): 199- 204.

322

Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 286-87; B. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient
Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49 (1987): 187-211, esp. 189, 200. For the context of CTA 3.3.15-28 (=
KTU 1.3 III 18-31) and the meaning of *‘nh in Hos. 2:21-23, see M. S. Smith, “Baal’s Cosmic
Secret,” UF 16 (1985): 295-98; cf. Freedman, “Israel’s Response,” 199-204; Batto, “The Covenant
of Peace,” 199. For the pair “Heaven” and “Deep” in another context of earthly fertility, see Gen.
27:39; 49:25; Deut. 33:13. According to Hab. 3:10, “Deep gave forth its voice,” natan téhém góló.
The phrase is highly reminiscent of Baal’s giving forth of his holy voice in KTU 1.4 VII 29 and
Yahweh in various biblical passages, including Joel 4:16 (E 3:16) and Amos 1:2. The application of
this image to Deep in Hab. 3:10 perhaps represents an extension of this motif generally attributed to
the storm-god in Ugaritic and Israelite literature (see chapter 2, section 2).

323
See Yee, Composition and Tradition, 88-90.
324

See ANET, 534. For discussion, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28 n. 86; Peckham,
“Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel,” 89-90 nn. 11-13. For later evidence from Philo of Byblos,
see Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 82 n. 55.

325

See Nougayrol, Ug V, 45-46; de Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit, 157; J. F. Healey, “The Akkadian
‘Pantheon’ List from Ugarit,” SEL 2 (1985): 115-25.

326

According to Nougayrol (Ug V, 48) these b ‘Im constitute Baal’s military escort. Nougayrol further
allows for the possibility that these baals are baals of various local sanctuaries. R. J. Clifford (The
Cosmic Mountain, 65) also surmises these are the baals at local sanctuaries. J. C. de Moor (“The
Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit,” UF2 [1970]: 219) likewise identifies these b‘Im with b‘ spn, but
discounts them as various baals at local sanctuaries. The reference to b‘/m in this manner differs
from allusions to 5 7, b ‘7 spn, or b ‘T’ugrt in other texts and would appear to differ in some way from
all three of these baals.

327

ANET, 201. This sort of delineation of the storm-god is found also in Hittite treaties discovered at
Ras Shamra (see Ug V 48). It is by no means certain, however, that groups of multiple 4IM in Hittite
lists of gods refer to local variants or manifestations of the storm-god.

328
Cf. B. Halpern, “‘Brisker Poetry Than Pipes,”” 84, 92-94,
329

Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 256-58. Besides the manifestation of the deity at various locales,
there are other types of plural forms of deities in Northwest Semitic literature, mostly attested in
Ugaritic and Phoenician. Plural forms of deity may reflect a divine vanguard of a deity. This
constitutes a less likely interpretation of “the baals,” since after six references to b Im, CTA 29.12 (=
KTU 1.118.11) lists ‘i t‘dr b‘T, “Baal’s divine helpers,” perhaps equivalent with his vanguard
described in KTU 1.5 V 7-9. This idea may apply to enigmatic plural references to rspm, cognate
with the West Semitic god Resheph. Ugaritic attests to both rspm and to several rsp combined with
a place name (P. Xella, “KTU 1.91 [RS 19.15] e i sacrifici del re,” UF 11 [1979]: 833-38). The
plural rSpm in KTU 1.91.11 are described entering bt mlk, the royal palace or royal
sanctuary/chapel. According to de Tarragon (Le Culte a Ugarit, 167), this description refers to the
procession of cult statues into a sanctuary. Sidonian inscriptions (KAI 15:2; RES 289:2, 290:3, 302
B:5) mention re rspm, “the land of reshephs” (cf. ‘rgrSp in KAI 214:11). Following Albright, H.
Donner and W. Röllig (Kanaanäische und Ararmäische Inschriften, vol. 2, Kommentar [Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1973], 24) interpret ršpm as a general collectivity of deities like the Rephaim
(see below). Might ‘rs refer, like smm rmm in the preceding line of KAI 15:2, to a sacred “district,”
in this case perhaps figuratively to the “underworld,” hence a cemetery? (See G. C. Picard, “From
the Foundation of Carthage to the Barcid Revolution,” Archaeologia Viva 1/2 [1968-69]: 152.)
Fulco (The Canaanite God Resep [New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976], 47) renders
‘rs rspm “Land of the Warriors.” Ugaritic and Phoenician rspm may designate a martial vanguard.
An Egyptian description of the army of Ramses III is compatible with this view: “the chariot-
warriors are as mighty as Rashaps" (ANET, 250 n. 27). BH resep appears as part of a theophanic
vanguard (Deut. 32:24; Hab. 3:5) and as a term for sparks and fiery arrows (Ps. 76:3; Job 5:7; Song
of Songs 8:6; cf. Aramaic rispa’, “flame’”). On Resheph, see also P. Xella, “Le dieu Rashaph a
Ugarit,” Les annales archaeologiques arabes syriennes 29-30 (1979-80): 145-62; Cooper, “Divine
Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 413-15; Y. Yadin, “New Gleanings on Resheph from
Ugarit,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauer
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 259-74; Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite
Literature,” 549). Other collective groups of deities in Ugaritic include rp’um, the mlkm and the ktrt.
The term gtrm in KTU 1.112.18-20 may belong to this category (as a title for the Rephaim like
mlkm? cf. gtr as title of rp ‘u mlk ‘Im in KTU 1.108.1-2; see de Tarragon, Le Culte Ugarit, 159, 176;
chapter 5, sections 2 and 3). De Moor (“The Semitic Pantheon,” 226) interprets some Ugaritic
divine names (e.g., ‘i/hm, b‘Im, mtm, nhrm, and sometimes ‘i/m) with mimation as instances of
plural of majesty (might the place name ‘andtot in Jer. 1:1 be explained along these lines?) See also
the “Baali-Zaphon,” attested in New Kingdom Egypt (ANET, 250). J. A. Wilson interprets this
phrase as either a plural of majesty or a collective noun (ANET, 250 n. 12). Bethel (Ba-a-a-ti-ili”*)
and Anat-Bethel (“4-na(?)-ti-Ba-[a]-[a-ti-i1]7") found in the treaty of Baal of Tyre with
Esarhaddon are marked as plural forms (R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von
Assyrien, Archiv für Orientsforschung Beiheft 9 [Graz: Weidner, 1956; reprinted, Osnabrück:
Biblio-Verlag, 1967], 109, col. 4, line 6; ANET, 491; Barré, The God-List, 46-47). BH ‘elöhim may
be understood as a plural of majesty or the like (see GKC, para. 124 g-h; Ginsberg, The Israelian
Heritage of Judaism [New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982], 35; A. E.
Draffkorn Kilmer, "7lanilElohím, " JBL 76 [1957]: 216-17; Ahlstróm, Who Were the Israelites? 94;

cf. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 134-35). The remarks in Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.20)
may be noted in this connection: “Now the allies of Elos, i.e., Kronos, were called ‘eloim,’ as the
ones named after Kronos would be “Kronians,”” hoi de summachoi Elou tou Kronou Elöeim
epeklélésan hos an Kronioi houtoi ésan hoi legomenoi epi Kronou (Attridge and Oden, Philo of
Byblos, 50-51). However, Burnett (4 Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, 19-24, 57-58) rejects the
plural of majesty in favor of the plural of abstraction. The resulting understanding (and translation
of “élohim (“divinity”) is not preferable to understanding (and translation) resulting from
interpreting ‘e/ohim as a plural of majesty (“godhead”). Still Burnett’s arguments specifically about
‘elohim as a plural of abstraction have much to commend them. For further discussion of such
divine groups, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 67-68; and note further 1. Kottsieper,
““STRM — eine siidarabische Gottheit in der Scharonebene,” ZAW 113 (2001): 245-50.

330

On ilani u istarati, see CAD 1:272; AHw, 399-400; Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the
Ugaritic Texts,” 342, 404. The genericization of West Semitic deities for common nouns occurred in
a variety of ways. The name of Dagon (Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon , 18-19) became a
BH word for "grain," dagón (BDB, 186). BH “asterót (has)so’n, referring to young sheep and goats
in Deut. 7:13 and 28:4, 18, 51, represents the generic usage of Astarte’s fertility (BDB, 800;
Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 185; H. L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth of
Anath and Aghat,” 9; Oden, Studies, 80). BH resep as a demon (Deut. 32:24; Hab. 3:5), disease (Ps.
78:48), and sparks and fiery arrows (Ps. 76:3; Job 5:7; Song of Songs 8:6) can be traced to the
Canaanite god by the same name (see the preceding note). For evidence of résapim in rabbinic
sources as a breed of birds, see E. Lipinski, “R°safim: From God to Birds of Prey,” in Mythos im
Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A.
Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Rómheld, BZAW 278 (Berlin/New York, 1999), 255-59. In Arabic,
the names of Baal and Mot denote types of soil relating to the qualities of the gods who gave their
names to these types (W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions,
Burnett Lectures 1888-1889, rev. ed. [London: Adam & Charles Black, 1894; reprint, New York:
Schocken, 1972], 97; T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East, rev.
ed. [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961], 124-25). Gaster would add Athtar to this list, but
Robertson Smith questions this attribution (Religion of the Semites, 99 n. 2). The expressions “house
of Baal” and “field of the house of Baal” refer to a well-watered field in the Mishnah (Sebi ‘it 2:9;
Terumot 10:11, Baba Batra 3:1; see Smith, Religion of the Semites , 96-97, 99 n. 2, 102). According
to G. Dossin, at Mari the name of Shamash was used as a word for “god” (“Le Pantheon de Mari,”
in Studia Mariana, vol. 4 [Leiden: Brill, 1950], 46). For the possibility that 'annót in Exod. 32:18
derived from the name of the goddess Anat, see H. L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth,” 9.
Albright (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 187) interprets *‘aSmannim (written with waw in
1QIsa?) in Isa 59:10 as an abstract plural meaning “health,” deriving from the name of the god
Eshmun. The development of 7 for “god” from El/ Ilu has been discussed in connection with the
process of genericization (see A. R. Millard, review of The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, by J. J. M.
Roberts, JSS 19 [1974]: 89). The generic usage does not appear to apply to the divine name mlk (see
chapter 5, section 3).

331
The form habbé “alím is not singular with an added or enclitic mem (so Boling, Judges, 74).
332

On the difficulties attending the interpretation of Baal Hamon, see Pope, Song of Songs, 686-88.
Concerning Baal Peor, see chapter 5, section 2. According to Ps. 106:34-38, the cult of Baal-Peor
involved child sacrifice, on which see below chapter 5.

233

See McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data,” in
Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D.
Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 139-43.

334
PRU III, 16.
335

ANEP. 168 and 307, no. 490. For EA 147:13-15, see W. L. Moran, Les Lettres d'El-Amarna , trans.
D. Collon and H. Cazelles, LAPO 13 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1987), 378-80. For general
discussions, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 147-51; Miller, The Divine Warrior, 24-
48; M. Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” in
History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures , ed. H.
Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 121-47; S. Moon-Kang, Divine War in the
Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, BZAW 177 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1989), 77-79;
and C. Kloos, Yhwh s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel
(Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 42-52. For further pertinent iconography,
see the depictions of the Late Bronze Age Syrian “smiting god”; see A. Vanel, L'Iconographie du
dieu de l’orage, dans le proche-orient ancien jusqu'au HIE siecle avant J.-C., CRB 3 (Paris:
Gabalda, 1965), 69-110; O. Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of Ancient
Syro-Palestinian Figurines (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1976), 29-36; I.
Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba ‘al: Late Bronze Age I Periods (c.
1500-1000 BCE), OBO 140 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1994); Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 60, 76-78, 135-36, 138 & 140 n.
8.

33

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 162-63. See also Pope, “Baal Worship,” 12.
337

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 151-63; Moon-Kang, Divine War, 204-22; Kloos, Yhwh s
Combat with the Sea.

338

J. Day, Gods Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications
35 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985), 105-6.

339

See M. Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’” JANES 5 (1975 = T. H.
Gaster Festschrift): 421-26; idem, “Divine Intervention,” 121-24; Moon-Kang, Divine War, 23-48;
T. Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn of Habakkuk 3, HSM 38 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars,
1986), 93.

340

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 101-2; idem, “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” 57-63;
Miller, Divine Warrior, 160-61; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 83-92. These poems are thought to
belong to the older strata of Israelite literature (see introduction, section 1).

241

A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 2d ed. (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales, 1967), 78 n. 6; J.
Gray, “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: Psalm LXVII,” JSS 22 (1977): 7, 9, 21 n. 4; Day, God's
Conflict, 31. Although BH ba ‘arabot is interpreted as “steppes” instead of “clouds,” Yahweh
nonetheless is regarded as riding on a cloud in this passage (see Day, God's Conflict, 32). For other
suggestions, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 458-60.

342

See J. C. Greenfield, *Ugaritic md] and Its Cognates," Biblica 45 (1964): 527-34; Weinfeld, “Rider
of the Clouds,’ 421-26; J. Day, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm xxix
and Habakkuk iii 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah vi,” VT 29 (1979): 147 n. 18; R. M.
Good, “Some Draught Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals,” UF 16 (1984): 80-81. Day
(God's Conflict, 33 n. 93) also compares Enlil's commission to Ishkur: “Let the seven winds be
harnessed before you like a team, harness the winds before you" (ANET, 578). See also the seven
winds in Marduk’s weaponry in Enuma Elish 4:46-47 (ANET, 66). Cf. A. A. Weider, “Ugaritic-
Hebrew Lexicographical Notes,” JBL 84 (1965): 164.

243
Cf. Ahlström, Royal Administration, 70 n. 130.
344

Albright, The Biblical Period, 18; Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50, AB 16 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1965), xxiii, xxv, xxxvi, 45, 79, 89, 117, 194, 251; idem, Psalms IT: 51-100, AB 17 (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1968), xxxix, 38, 149, 303; idem, Psalms III: 101-150, AB 17A (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1970), xxxix-xl, 188, 201, 229, 293, 295, 310, 320, 341; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and
Prophecy, 78-79, 261; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 234 n. 66; Cooper, “Divine Names
and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 451-58. On “Ty in RS 18.22.4’, see PRU VI, 55; and J.
Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, HSS 32 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987),
160. Freedman (Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 95) and G. Rendsburg (“The Northern Origin of ‘the
Last Words of David’ (2 Sam. 23, 1-7),” Biblica 69 [1988]: 119) interpret 'a/ in 2 Sam. 23:1 as an
epithet. Citing the reading ’/ in 4QSam*, Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 52 n. 31, 234 በ.
66) and McCarter (/7 Samuel, 477) reject this interpretation of 2 Sam. 23:1 (see E. C. Ulrich, The
Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19 [Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978], 113-14;
Barthelemy, Critique Textuelle de l'Ancien Testament, 1.310).

345

The name ‘é/? does not indicate that he was a priest of a deity “ly other than Yahweh (so Ahlström,
“The Travels of the Ark,” 142; idem, Who Were the Israelites? 78), but rather that ‘ly, a title of Baal
in the Ugaritic texts, had become a title of Yahweh in ancient Israel.

346

N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 45, 93-94.

347

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 73-75. See also Ahlstróm, Royal Administration , 69 n.
91; and K. Koenen, “Eherne Schlage und goldenes Kalb: Eine Vergleich der Uberlieferungen,” ZAW
111 (1999): 353-72. For the Exodus as a northern “charter myth,” see van der Toorn, Family
Religion, 287-315; see also A. Cooper and B. Goldstein, “Exodus and Massót in History and
Tradition,” Maarav 8/2 (1992): 15-37.

348

On the reading of the name, see J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions , vol. 1,
Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 10, 12; Ahlström, “An
Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religion in Ancient Palestine,” Studia Orientalia 55 (1984): 11;
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 59. In a private communication, Tigay mentions that the PN
may be moot, if * ‘g/ means “to speed, hasten.” Yet this verbal meaning is rare, if not unattested, for
Hebrew, at least in the biblical period.

349

For a discussion of the bull site, see A. Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site’ — An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,”
BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42; R. Wenning and E. Zenger, “Ein bauerliches Baal-Heiligtum im
samarischen Gebirge aus der Zeit der Anfänge Israels,” ZDPV 102 (1986): 75-86. For a defense of
the site as Israelite, see A. Mazar, “On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael
Coogan,” Biblical Archaeologist Review 15/4 (1988): 45. In contrast, I. Finkelstein (“Two Notes on
Northern Samaria: The *Einun Pottery and the Date of the ‘Bull Site,”” PEQ 130 [1998]: 94-98)
regards the bull site as Middle Bronze. Besides calf iconography, the solar disk and a goddess are
depicted on the Taanach stand, and if one were to assume its Israelite provenience, it would
constitute an example of the polytheistic religious belief in Israel; cf. R. Hestrin, “Cult Stand from
Ta‘anach,” EAEHL 4:61-77; and chapter 1, section 4; chapter 4, section 3.

350

For the Tel Dan plaque B, see A. Biran, “Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan,” [EJ 49
(1999): 43-54. For the Bethsaida stele, see M. Bernett and O. Keel, Mond, Stier und Kult am
Stadttor, Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell), OBO 161 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient
Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible, JsOTSup 261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998),
115-20; and T. Ornan, “The Bull and Its Two Masters: Moon and Storm Deities in Relation to the
Bull in Ancient Near Eastern Art,” JEJ 51 (2001): 1-26.

351

See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 310, 318. Steiner also compares the speech of
Abijah in 2 Chronicles 13 (esp. w. 8, 10, 12).

352

See Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 361; Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site,” 27-
32; Hestrin, “Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 75. See further the discussion of D. Fleming, “If EI is a
Bull, Who is a Calf? Reflections on Religion in Second-Millennium Syria-Palestine,” El 26 (1999):
52*-63*.,

353

Perhaps the motif of “kissing” in Hos. 13:2 should be compared with nasséqu-bar, “kiss purely (?)”
in Ps. 2:12, although C. A. and E. G. Briggs (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Psalms, vol. 1, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906], 17) compare Job 31:26- 28 (see chapter 4 n.
13 below).

354

See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 313.
222

So T. J. Lewis (personal communication).
356

See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 321. This text may provide background to the
’asmat of Samaria in Amos 8:14 and Eshem-Bethel, a compound divine name attested at
Elephantine. See M. Cogan, “Ashima,” DDD, 105-6.

337
Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 4.
358
For this usage, see P. D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2
(1970): 180.
339
On this seal, see chapter 1 n. 66.
360

For a discussion of the verbs in KTU 1.2 IV 27, see J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the
Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu: According to the Version of Ilimilku, AOAT 16 (Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1971), 138-39; E. L. Greenstein,
“The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic,” Maarav 3/2 (1982): 195-216.

361

Citing *prr, “crush, batter,” in Mishnaic Hebrew and Akkadian, J. C. Greenfield (review of The Ras
Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, by A. S. Kapelrud, JAOS 87 [1967]: 632) rejects the
common rendering of pórartà in Ps. 74:13 as “split, divide” (RSV; cf. New American Bible: “stirred
up”; New Jewish Publication Society: “drove back”).

362

See C. H. Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations,
ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1966), 4, pl. 1; J. C. Greenfield, “Notes on
Some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls,” JANES 5 (1973 = T. H. Gaster volume): 151; E.
Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the Bronze
Age,” in Ancient Seals and the Bible, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte (Malibu, CA: Undena,
1983), 18-43; G. Rendsburg, “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal,” Orientalia 53 (1984): 448-52. For
iconographic evidence for the Syrian warrior-god piercing a serpent, see also Vanel, L ’Tconographie
du Dieu, 126; Keel, “Ancient Seals and the Bible,” 309.

363
ANEP, 218, no. 671.
364

H. Ringgren, “Ugarit und das Alte Testament: Einige methodologische Erwágungen;” UF 11
(1979): 719-20; Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 388-91; O. Loretz,
“Der Tod Baals als Rache Mot für die Vernichtung Leviathans in KTU 1.5 I 1-8,” UF 12 (1980):
404-5; D. A. Diewart, “Job 7:12: Yam, Tannin and the Surveillance of Job,” JBL 106 (1987): 203-
15.

305

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 113-16, 119-20; Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic Texts,” 369-83; S. Rummel, “Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts,” in Ras Shamra
Parallels, vol. 3, ed. S. Rummel, AnOr 51 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), 233-75; S. E.
Loewenstamm, “The Ugaritic Myth of the Sea and Its Biblical Counterparts,” ET 14 (1978): 96-101
= Comparative Studies in Biblical and Oriental Literatures, AOAT 204 (Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), 346-61; Day, God's Conflict, 18-61, esp.
24. The tradition of Yamm has been presumed to be older than the extant Ugaritic tablets of the Baal
cycle dating to the fourteenth century. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 113), for example,
dates the earliest oral forms of the cycle to no later than the Middle Bronze Age (1800-1500). This
point has been recently confirmed by a Mari letter discussed below. For further discussion, see M.
S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume I, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary
of KTU 1.1-1.2, VTSup 55 (Leiden/New York/ Koln: Brill, 1994), 105-14.

366
Day, God's Conflict, 151-78.
367
Day, God $ Conflict, 88.
368
Day, God $ Conflict, 112, 142-45.
369

Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 392-400. For the name of the god Mot
as the theophoric element in Eblaitic proper names, see Lambert, “Old Testament Mythology,” 132;
F. Pomponio, “I nomi divini nei testi di Ebla,” UF 15 (1983): 152. Personal names from Emar
likewise have this god as the theophoric element: iliya-mut (Emar 109:46; 279:25; 319:8), mutu
(Emar 32:25; 99:15), and mu[tu]-re'u (J. Huehnergard, “The Vicinity of Emar,” Revue
Assyriologique 77 [1983]: 23, text 4, line 27; cf. Eblaite name re-ug-mu-tà in Pomponio, *I nomi
divini," 152). Mesopotamian tradition occasionally personifies death in the figure of miitu, “death,”
but it does not appear as a literary character (see CAD M/2: 317-18). The absence of an epic figure
of death in Mesopotamian tradition is conspicuous, since there is a plethora of motifs in the Baal-
Mot section of the Baal cycle (KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6, not simply 1.5- 6, as it is customarily
characterized) also in Mesopotamian literary texts, such as the descent of the hero to the
netherworld, the return of the hero from the netherworld, descriptions of the netherworld, and the
searching and lamenting of the consort for the hero. It may be suggested tentatively that the older
narrative of the hero’s death appears transformed in West Semitic tradition as a story of conflict
between the hero and personified death. The new form of the story may have been modeled on the
conflict narrative between Baal and Yamm. Some of the points of contact between the Baal-Yamm
and Baal-Mot stories have already been observed (see Rummel, “Narrative Structures in the
Ugaritic Texts,” 241-42). The date of this transformation is impossible to fix, although the personal
names with Mot as the theophoric element from Ebla might suggest a date prior to the extant
Ugaritic literary corpus. For further details, see M. S. Smith, “Death in Jeremiah IX, 20,” UF 19
(1987): 291-93. The biblical names ‘azmawet, meaning “Death is strong” (2 Sam. 23:31; 1 Chron.
27:25), and ‘ahimot, “my [divine] brother is Death” (1 Chron. 6:10), might suggest the continuation
of the god Mot into Israelite religion (see McCarter, /J Samuel, 498). One might appeal as well to
personifications of Death in biblical texts as evidence of devotion to the god of death. On Mot in
Ugaritic and biblical literature, see N. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld
in the Old Testament, Biblica et Orientalia 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 99-107;
Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 392-400; see also J. C. de Moor, “O
death, where is thy sting?”” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter
C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 99-107.

370

For discussion and references, see Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 70; F. Saracino, “Ger. 9,
20, un polmone ugaritico e la forza di Mot,” AION 44 (1984): 539-43; Smith, “Death in Jeremiah
IX, 20," 289-91; cf. J. L. Cunchillos, “Le dieu Mut, guerrier de El,” Syria 62 (1985): 205-18. See
also H. Tawil, ““Azazel the Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study,” ZAW 92 (1980): 43-59.

al

For the possible Canaanite background for Mot manifest in the east wind, see de Moor, Seasonal
Pattern, 115, 173-76, 180, 187-89, 207, 228, 238-39; M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,”
UF 17 (1985): 331. See now the important study of A. Fitzgerald, The Lord of the East Wind,
CBQMS 34 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2002, in press), 182.
Cf. S. A. Wiggins, “The Weather Under Baal: Meteorology in KTU 1.1-6,” UF 32 (2000): 577-98.

372

Gaster, Thespis, 181-83; Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 142-44; A. Robinson, “Zion and Saphön
in Psalm XLVIII 3," VT 24 (1974): 118-23; M. Astour, “Place Names,” in Ras Shamra Parallels II,
ed. L. Fisher, AnOr 50 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 318-24; J. J. M. Roberts, "Sapón
in Job 28:7,” Biblica 56 (1975): 554-57; Mullen, The Divine Council, 154-55. Cf. divinized Mount
Hazzi (= Saphon) in Emar 472:58”, 473:9”, and 474:21”; *spn as a theophoric element in the
Phoenician name bdspn (CIS 108). For Baal Saphon in Egyptian and Phoenician sources, see R.
Stadelmann, Syrisch-Paldstinensische Gottheiten in Agypten, Probleme der Agyptologie 5 (Leiden:
Brill, 1967), 32-47; Pope, “Baal-Hadad,” in Pope and Röllig, Syrien, 257- 58; W. Fauth, “Das
Kasion-Gebirge und Zeus Kasios. Die antike Tradition und ihre vorderorientalischen Grundiagen,”
UF 22 (1990): 105-18. According to Achilles Tatius, Adventures 3.6, “at Pelusium [in Egypt] is the
holy statue of Zeus of Mount Casius; in it the god is represented so young that he seems more like
Apollo” (W. Gaselee, Achilles Tatius, Loeb Classical Library [London: William Heinemann; New
York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917], 146-47). On the Demotic text of Psalm 20, see nn. 22 and 23
above.

22
Thackeray and Marcus, Josephus, Antiquities V, 454-55.
24

ANET, 123; H. G. Giiterbock, “The Song of Ullikumi,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 5 (1951): 145;
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 59-60.

375

J. G. Frazer, Apollodorus: The Library, Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann; New
York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1921), 1.48-49; H. L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo 8, Loeb Classical
Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1930), 244-45. See
Day, God 5 Conflict, 32.

376

A. D. Godley, Herodotus, vol. 2, Books 3 and 4, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1921), 8-9; Day, God $ Conflict, 33 n. 92.

377

For examples of the Anatolian storm-god standing on mountains in Hittite iconography, see R. L.
Alexander, “The Mountain-God at Eflatun Pinar,” Anatolian Studies 2 (1968): 77-85; idem, “A
Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Fitzwilliam Museum,” Anatolian Studies 25 (1975): 111-17; H. G.
Güterbock, in K. Bittel et al., Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazilikaya (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag,
1975), 169-70, Tafel 42d; Lambert, “Trees, Snakes and Gods,” 443. For this iconography on Hittite
seals from Ras Shamra, see C. F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica 3: Sceaux et cylindres hittites, epee gravee
du cartouche de Mineptah, tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres decouvertes nouvelles de Ras
Shamra, Mission de Ras Shamra 8 (Paris: Geuthner, 1956), 24-25 figs. 32-33, 48-49 figs. 66-67, and
50 figs. 68-69. For iconography of the Syrian warrior-god standing on a mountain, see Vanel,
L’Iconographie du Dieu, 39, 61, 79, 83, 114, 118, 162. See also M. Dijkstra, “The Weather-God on
Two Mountains,” UF 23 (1991): 127-40.

378
Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 553-54.
279

For literary play on the name of Baal’s mountain in Hos. 13:12, Ps. 27:5, and Job 26:7- 8, see
Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 551, 553-54.

380

Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 143 n. 63; J. Levenson, Theology of the Program of the Restoration
of Ezekiel 40-48, HSM 10 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 15-16. For further Ugaritic connections
with Psalm 48, see also M. L. Barré, “The Seven Epithets of Zion in Ps 48, 2-3, ” Biblica 69 (1988):
557-63; M. S. Smith, “God and Zion: Form and Meaning in Psalm 48,” SEL 6 (1989): 67-77.

381

See Pope, “Baal Worship,” 12. See G. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies
in Their Social and Political Importance, HSM 41 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 91- 122.

382

In rabbinic tradition Leviathan was identified as a big fish (Leviticus Rabbah 22:10; David Kimchi
on Isa. 27A). As in 2 Baruch 29:4-8, later rabbinic sources mention Leviathan as food for the
righteous at the messianic banquet (Baba Batra 75b; Leviticus Rabbah 22:10; Midrash Tehillim 18).
Leviathan was invoked in two Aramaic bowls (see Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” 8; J. C.
Greenfield, “Notes on Some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls,” 151). On Leviathan in Arabic
tradition, see Wensinck, The Ocean, 3, 25. Leviathan was portrayed in thirteenth- and fourteenth-
century Hebrew manuscripts and on Seder plates in fifteenth-century Jewish communities in
northern Italy (see J. Guttmann, “Leviathan, Behemoth and Ziz: Jewish Messianic Symbols in Art,”
in No Graven Images: Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible, ed. J. Gutmann [New York: KTAV,
1971], 225-30). Leviathan has come into modern parlance as the largest or most massive thing of its
kind, including various large sea animals or seagoing vessels, inspiring the title of Thomas Hobbes’s
treatise on the state, Leviathan (1651 English edition; 1668 Latin edition).

383

See Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 125; Ahlstróm, “The Travels of the Ark,” 141- 48; Stager,
“Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” 1.

384

See J. A. Soggin, “The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom,” in Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H.
Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL (London: SCM, 1977), 361-63, 370-73.

385

Moon-Kang (Divine War, 224) describes the political dimensions of the divine warrior: “the
traditions and the historical and annalistic records of the Davidic battles show that the idea of
YHWH’s help and intervention in the battles began to appear in the rising period of the Davidic
kingdom." Cross, Freedman, and others date Exodus 15, Hab. 3:3-15, and other biblical
compositions to the premonarchic period, while some commentators prefer a monarchic date,
conforming more closely to the point that the monarchy played a significant role in the patterning of
Yahweh after Baal (for the range of opinions on Exodus 15, see Moon-Kang, Divine War, 115-16 n.
9; for the dates proposed for Hab. 3:3-15, see Hiebert, God of My Victory, 119-20; cf. Floyd, “Oral
Tradition,” 272-300). The premonarchic date of the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 is more secure
(see Moon-Kang, Divine War, 179-80; and Floyd, “Oral Tradition,” 233-66).

386
Concerning Psalm 18 = 2 Samuel 22, see chapter 1, section 5.
387

On the political aspects of Psalm 2, see H. J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary, trans. H. C.
Oswald (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1988), 125-32.

388

G. W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs (Lund: Häkan
Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959), 108-9; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 258; Clifford,
“Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47; P. G.
Mosca, “Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link,” Biblica 67 (1986): 496-517. For the political
significance of Psalm 89, see further Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 160-62, 257-61.
Despite the suggestive parallel of Yamm’s title tpt nhr, “Judge River,” there are no text-critical

grounds for interpreting BH nArwt in the singular, although the word might be interpreted as a plural
of majesty (for discussion, see U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 2, Bible and Ancient
Oriental Texts, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975], 84; Dahood, Psalms II, 120-21). In
texts dating to New Kingdom Egypt, the military prowess of the pharaoh 1s compared with Baal's
martial abilities (see EA 147:13-15; ANET, 249-50; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.
3, 65, 67, 69, 71; Gaál, “Tuthmosis as a Storm-God?” 29-37).

389

The use of the singular *nahaàr in Ps. 72:8 differs strikingly from the general use of the plural in BH
texts containing the cosmic terms “Sea” and “River” (see the previous note). On this verse, see H. J.
Kraus, Psalmen 60-150, BKAT 15/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des
Erziehungsvereins, 1972), 498.

390

On 2 Sam. 5:20, see McCarter, /7 Samuel, 154. See also A. Mazar, “Three Israelite Sites in the Hills
of Judah and Ephraim," BA 45 (1982): 170.

391

J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire," in Studies in the Period
of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical
Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December 1979, ed. T. Ishida (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 93-108.
See also Moon-Kang, Divine War, 202. Freedman (Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 79, 93-107)
characterizes the tenth century and following as a period of “monarchic syncretism” with respect to
divine titles (e.g., ly; see above section 2).

392

T. N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH — The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in
Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International
Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December 1979, ed. T Ishida, 117.

393
Moon-Kang, Divine War, 197-98.
394
Moon-Kang, Divine War.
395
See Introduction, section 1; and the following discussion.
396

J. M. Durand, “Le mythologeme du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mesopotamia,”
MARI 7 (1993): 41-61; P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’apres les
textes ougaritiques,” MARI 7 (1993): 63-70; Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 158-59.
Concerning the prophet Nur-Sin of Aleppo, see B. Lafont, “Le roi de Mari et les prophetes du dieu
Adad,” Revue assyriologique 78 (1984): 7-18.

397

RS 20.24 and RS 1929.17 (KTU 1.47), treated by Nougayrol, Ug V, 44-45, 47-48; cf. the readings in
KTU 1.47 and 1.118. See F. B. Knutson, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts,” in
Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, vol. 3, ed. S. Rummel, AnOr
51 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981), 474-76. On Ugaritic hd, see M. H. Pope, “Baal-
Hadad,” in Pope and Róllig, Syrien, 253-54; P. J. van Zijl, Baal. A Study of the Texts in Connexion
with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics, AOAT 10 (Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1972), 346-51; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic, 10-11, 58. On hd especially in first-millennium sources, see J. C. Greenfield, “Aspects of
Aramaean Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P.
D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 67-70.

398
PRU IV, 85.
399

See Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 120, 124, 210; I. J. Gelb, A Computer-Aided Analysis of
Amorite, Assyriological Studies 21 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980),
272-73; J. M. Durand, “Différentes questions a propos de la Religion,” MARI 5 (1987): 613-14. Cf.
the name ahiyami at Taanach (see A. E. Glock, “Texts and Archaeology at Tell Ta‘annak,” Berytus
31 [1983]: 60).

400

See A. Malamat, “’Ihwtw 81 hym htykwn btqst prh-‘weryty” [The Divinity of the Mediterranean Sea
in a pre-Ugaritic text," in Mhqrym bmqr': yws'ym / ዝህፖ bmlt m'h snh thwidtw Sl m’d q’swtw
[Research in the Bible; Published on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the birth of M. D.
Cassuto] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), 184-88; cf. Malamat, “Campaigns to the Mediterranean by
Iahdunlim and Early Mesopotamian Rulers," in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His
Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, Assyriological Studies 16 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1965), 367.

401

Emar 373:92”: a-na 9INANNA ña a-bi u “La-a-mi 2 ta-pal x[, “a Astarté de la Mer et á lammu, les
deux pai[res ... ditto" (an offering).

402
CAD K:52-55.
403

G. Dossin, “Une lettre de Iarim-Lim, roi d'Alep, à Iasub-Iahad, roi de Dir," Syria 33 (1956): 67, line
32; CAD K:54; D. Charpin, “De la Joie à l'Orage;" MARI 5 (1987): 661.

404

See Smith, "Interpreting the Baal Cycle," 330-31 n. 95. King Arhalbu's invocations of Baal in RS
16.144.9, 12-13 (PRU III, 76) are perhaps pertinent: ba lu (ISKUR) li-ra-hi-is-su, “may Baal
inundate him”; 4Ba‘lu (ISKUR) bel (EN) hursán (HUR.SAG) Hlazi li-ra-hi-is-$u, “may Baal, the
lord of Mount Hazzi, inundate him." See further discussion of the Baal cycle in this context in
Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 105-14.

405

The dissimilation of /dd/ to /nd/ in the theophoric element *andu in ni-iq/niq-ma-an-du 1s not
exceptional (see Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 13). On *nqm, see W. T. Pitard, “Amarna
ekemu and Hebrew naqam, " Maarav 3/1 (1982): 5-25.

406
Gróndahl, Die Personennamen, 17, 68.
407

For proposals for the historical setting of Enuma Elish, see T. W. Mann, Divine Presence and
Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press, 1977), 48-51.

408

T. Jacobsen, “The Battle Between Marduk and Tiamat,” JAOS 88 (1968): 104-8; idem, “Religious
Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975), 75-76. It has been argued also that the West Semitic
conflict myth was transmitted through Mesopotamia to India, reflected in material in the Rig Veda
concerning the storm-god, Indra, who defeats the cosmic enemy, Vrtra (so A. K. Lahiri, Vedic Vrtra
[Delhi: Motital Banarsidass, 1984]; for texts 1.32, 1.85, 1.165, 1.170, and 1.171, see W. O‘Flaherty,
The Rig Veda: An Anthology [Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1981], 148-51, 167-72; H. D. Velankar,
“Hymns to Indra in Mandala J,” Journal of Bombay University 20/2 [1950]: 17-34). Gaster long ago
compared the West Semitic, East Semitic, and Vedic material (Thespis, 150, 164-65, 170). The
evidence rests largely on the comparison between the storm-gods, Baal and Indra. Both gods defeat
a cosmic enemy with the aid of divine weapons fashioned by a craftsman-god. Furthermore, like
Marduk (cf. Enuma Elish 4:39-40; see ANET, 66), both storm-gods are described as having
meteorological helpers (see O’Flaherty, The Rig Veda, 167- 72). Baal’s meteorological entourage
includes “your clouds, your winds, your chariots (?), your rains,... your seven youths, your eight

lads” (KTU 1.5 V 6-9). Indra’s entourage includes his assistants, the Maruts; they are youthful
warriors, riding chariots that produce rains (O’Flaherty, The Rig Veda, 166-72). On this point, see
further N. Wyatt, “Baal’s Seven Boars,” UF 19 (1987): 391-98. It is interesting to note the
observation of M. Muller (Vedic Hymns: Part 1, Hymns to Maruts, Rudra, Vaya, and Vätra, The
Sacred Books of the East 32 [Oxford: At the Clarendon, 1891], 58) that the description of the
Maruts tossing clouds across the sea is unexpected for an inland people. This is precisely the type of
argument that Jacobsen employs for his theory of transmission of the West Semitic conflict myth to
Mesopotamia. The theory espoused by Lahiri, however, is marred by poor data and problematic
historical reconstructions (J. A. Santucci, review of Vedic Vrtra, by A. K. Lahiri, Religious Studies
Review 14/1 [1988]: 89; see also J. Z. Smith, review of Gods Battle with the Monster: A Study in
Biblical Imagery, by M. K. Wakeman, JBL 94 [1975]: 442-44; Wyatt, “Baal’s Seven Boars,” 396-
98). The craftsman-god is absent from Enuma Elish, casting some doubt on this text as the middle
step in the transmission of the conflict myth.

409

ANET, 72; F. M. Th. Bohl, “Die fiinfzig Namen des Marduk,” Archiv für Orient-forschung 11
(1936): 210. On the fifty names of Marduk, see also Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk,” 5-28. That the
divine hero varied according to locale is evident from the Assyrian version that substitutes Assur for
Marduk (see ANET, 62 n. 28). I thank Professor Olyan for bringing this point to my attention.

410

On this text, see Bohl, “Die fiinfzig Namen des Marduk,” 210; Lambert, “Historical Development
of the Mesopotamian Pantheon,” 198.

411

Further evidence of the common Amorite traditions behind the Ugaritic and Babylonian dynasties
includes their common tribal ancestor, Ugaritic ddnidtn (see KTU 1.15 III 2-4, 13- 15; 1.124.4;
1.161.10), and di-ta-nu in the genealogy of the Hammurapi dynasty of Babylon and di-ta-na and di-
da-a-nu of Assyrian King List A. For the evidence, see E. Lipinski, “Ditanu,” in Studies in the Bible
and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau
(Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s Publishing House, 1978), 91-99; J. C. de Moor, “Rapituma —
Rephaim," ZAW 88 (1968): 332-33; K. A. Kitchen, “The King List of Ugarit," UF9 (1977): 142; M.
H. Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit,” in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory
of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. M. de Jong Ellis, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and
Sciences (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977), 179; D. Pardee, “Visiting Ditanu — The Text of RS
24.272,” UF 15 (1981): 127-40; B. Levine and J. M. de Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The
Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty,” JAOS 104 (1984): 655. On the genealogy of the Hammurapi
dynasty, see J. J. Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” JCS 20 (1966): 95-118;
W. G. Lambert, “Another Look at Hammurabi’s Ancestors,” JCS 22 (1968-69): 1-2. Concerning the
Assyrian King List, see I. J. Gelb, “Two Assyrian King Lists,” JNES 13 (1954): 209-30, esp. 210
line 5, 211 line 4; A. R. Millard, “Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Middle Assyrian and
Later Kings,” Iraq 32 (1970): 167-76, especially 175 line 5. See also A. Malamat, “King Lists of the
Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88 (1968): 163-73; and R. R. Wilson,
Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, Yale Near Eastern Researches 7 (New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press, 1977), 87-100, 107-14. See also the names of two monarchs of the first dynasty of
Babylon, sa-am-su /si-di-ta-nu, and the name of one ruler in the ancestral line, a-bi-di-ta-an
(Lipinski, “Ditanu,” 92-93). The name of Ammi-ditana occurs in the genealogy of the Hammurapi
dynasty and in the Ras Shamra recension of HAR-ra = hubullu (B. Landsberger, E. Reiner, and M.
Civil, Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon XI: The Series Har-ra = hubullu, Tablets 20-24 [Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1974], 48, col. 4, lines 20-21, and 52, line 26). The latter attests to
di-da-na as well (Landsberger, Reiner, and Civil, Materials, 48, col. 4, line 22, and 52, line 28).

412
Day, Gods Conflict, 18-37.
413

S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel s Worship, 2 vols. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 1.16-92,
2.222-50; see also Gaster, Thespis, 442-59.

414

E. S. Gerstenberger, “The Lyrical Literature," in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed.
D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (Philadelphia: Fortress; Decatur, GA: Scholars, 1985), 430; Day,
God's Conflict, 20.

415
Day, God $ Conflict, 22.
416

See now the magisterial work on meteorology and biblical poems (especially the Psalms) by A.
Fitzgerald, The Lord of the East Wind.

AR?

For a full discussion of the following points, see Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 313-39; cf.
Gaster, Thespis, esp. 238; and de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, ad loc.

418

On Anat, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 400-402; Oden, Studies,
81-82; M. Delcor, “Une allusions á Anat, déesse guerriére en Ex. 32:18?” JJS 33 (1982 = Essays in
Honour of Yigael Yadin): 145-60; B. Z. Luria, “Who Was Shamgar ben Anat?” Dor le Dor 14
(1985-86): 105-7; Ahlstróm, Who Were the Israelites? 77; N. H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in
Ugaritic Myth, SBLDS 135 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992); P. L. Day, “Anat: Ugarit’s ‘Mistress of
Animals,’ JNES 51 (1992): 181-90; “Anat,” DDD, 36-43; idem, “Why Is Anat a Warrior and
Hunter?” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His
Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. D. Jobling, P. L. Day, and G. T. Sheppard (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press,
1991), 141-46, 329-32; and J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 132-44. Day’s assessment appears overly optimistic for
the extent of Anat in pre-exilic Israelite religion. Anat appears in the Bible only in the form of
proper names (see chapter 1, section 3), and no Phoenician inscription extant from the mainland
attests to her. The goddess Antit is attested in an Egyptian stele from Beth-Shan (see A. Rowe, The
Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan [Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1940], 34, pl.
65A; A. Kempinski, “Beth-shean,” EAEHL 1:215). The vocalization of Ugaritic ‘nt as *'anatu
(hence the English spelling, Anat) is based on the occurrence of her name as 4a-natum in RS
20.24.20 (Ug V, 44; see Knutson, *Divine Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts," 476-77) and
Ugaritic personal names. For Anat in Phoenician and Punic, see A. Frendo, “A New Punic
Inscription from Zejtun (Malta) and the Goddess Anat-Astarte, PEQ 131 (1991): 24-35. For the
etymology of her name, see n. 135 below and chapter 3, section 3.

419

In addition to Shamgar son of “Anat (ben 'ánat), see bét-'ánat (Josh. 19:38) and huion Anat, “sons
of Anat" (LXX Vaticanus Josh. 17:7) as well as bn'nt in a seventh-century inscription from Ekron
(see S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, *A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron," /EJ 47
[1997]: 13-14). Cf. “ánatót, a place in Benjamin and the home of Jeremiah (Josh. 21:18; 1 Kings
2:26; Isa. 10:30; Jer. 1:1; 11:21, 23; 32:7-9; Ezra 2:23; Neh. 7:27; 11:32; 1 Chron. 8:45), possibly a
place-name based on a divine name (cf. place-names *Ashtarot, *Anat on the Euphrates, URUBa. '-]i
in a Neo-Assyrian list; see Astour, “Yahweh,” 33); cf. the Benjaminite with this name (1 Chron.
7:8). The personal name 'antotiyyah, the name of a Benjaminite (1 Chron. 8:24), could be related to
the name of the goddess, but following the lead of Albright and Milik, Olyan (“Some
Observations,” 170 n. 56) takes this name as a sentence name meaning “Yahweh is my providence,”
connecting *‘ant6t- with Aramaic ‘anta’ and Akkadian ittu, “sign, omen” (cf. E. L. Curtis and A. A.
Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, ICC [New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910], 163). See also the possibly related gentilic forms in 2 Sam. 23:27;
Jer. 29:27; 1 Chron. 11:28; 12:3; 27:2. Concerning Anat as the theophoric element in proper names,
in addition to the studies cited in the previous note, see A. G. Auld, “A Judaean Sanctuary of ‘Anat
(Josh. 15:59),” TA 4 (1977): 85-86. Arguments that these names indicate cultic devotion to the
goddess (e.g., Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? 77) exceed the evidence, since the giving of
personal names was subject to conventions other than those of cultic devotion (for further
discussion, see Introduction). Furthermore, the place-names with the theophoric element ‘nt supply
information pointing to the indigenous character of her cult, but the cult may predate the attestation
of the names. For a proposal comparing the imagery of Anat and Deborah, see P. C. Craigie, “Three
Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah,” JSOT 2 (1977): 33-49; idem, “Deborah and Anat: A Study
of Poetic Imagery,” ZAW 90 (1978): 374-81. See also R. M. Good, “Exodus 32:18,” in Love and

Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M.
Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 137-42.

420

For the elements byt’l, *’Sm, *‘nt, and *hrm as hypostases, see J. T. Milik, “Les papyrus araméens
d’Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens en Egypte perse," Biblica 48 (1967): 556-64; P. K.
McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data,” in
Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D.
Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 138-43; Olyan, “Some Observations,” 170, and Burnett, A
Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, Society of Biblical Literature, 90-92.

421

B. Porten discusses the two possibilities that these elements are either hypostases or survivals of old
divinities (Archives from Elephantine [Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1968],
154, 156, 165-70, 178-79, 317). J. P. Hyatt (“The Deity Bethel in the Old Testament,” JAOS 59
[1939]: 81-98) and B. Levine (Un the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms
in Ancient Israel, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5 [Leiden: Brill, 1974], 131-32) see no
impediment to the latter view. The name Bethel in Jer. 48:13 may point to a Phoenician source lying
behind the evidence for Bethel as a divine name in both biblical and Jewish Egyptian sources. Such
an explanation might account for the element *'nt in the names from Elephantine. For various
proposals for the etymology of Anat's name, see Pope, Anat,” in Pope and Róllig, Syrien, 235-41.
Lambert equates Anat's name with Hanat, an area populated by a group of Amorites with its capital
at Terqa (“Old Testament Mythology,” 132, esp. n. 6).

422

On Anat-Bethel of Tyre, see chapter 1, section 6.
423

See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Scripture,” 314.
424

See Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, 1.157-61; Coogan, Stories from Ancient
Canaan, 90-91; Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 47-48; del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas,
181-82; see also the works cited in the following note. For hin, see M. L. Brown, “‘Is It Not” or
‘Indeed!’: HL in Northwest Semitic," Maarav 4/2 (1987): 205. On sbm//mdnt as terms for enemies,
see M. Held, "Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography," in Studies in Honor of Benno
Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Assyriological Studies 16 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1965), 404 n. 122; on ks! qsth, see Held, “Studies,” 404. The verb fg// has been usually
rendered “wade.” For the alternative interpretation of the verb as “glean,” and for other examples of
agricultural imagery used for descriptions of warfare, see R. M. Good, “Metaphorical Gleanings
from Ugarit,” JJS 33 (1982 = Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin): 55-59. For hlgm as “neck(-deep),”
see the contextual comparison with Rev. 14:14-20 suggested by D. Pardee, “The New Canaanite
Myths and Legends," BiOr 37 (1980): 276; cf. Mehri and Harsusi helgemot and Jibbali halqut,
meaning “Adam’s apple” or “side of the throat” (so G. A. Rendsburg, “Modern South Arabian as a
Source for Ugaritic Etymologies,” JAOS 107 [1987]: 628). Due to similar martial language in both
halves, most interpreters view the second half of the passage as a continuation of the fighting. The
second half is not battle proper, but the goddess’s feast on her captives. Concerning cannibalism
following battle, see M. Harris, The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and
Culture (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 216-22; see Harris’s comments relating the decline
of warfare cannibalism to state development.

425

J. Gray, “The Wrath of God in Canaanite and Hebrew Literature,” Bulletin of the Manchester
University Egyptian and Oriental Society 25 (1947-53): 9-19; Pope, Song of Songs, 606-12; P. D.
Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern,” JBL 92 (1973): 46-47 n.
25; J. Gray, “The Blood Bath of the Goddess Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts,” UF 11 (1979): 315-24;
Pardee, “The New Canaanite Myths and Legends,” 276-77; V. Kubac, “Blut im Gurtel und in
Sandalen,” VT 31 (1981): 225-26.

426

See Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 78-79; Stadelmann, Syrisch-Palastinensische Gottheiten, 91-
96; ANET, 250.

427
On the conflation of imagery of El and Baal in biblical tradition, see chapter 1, section 4.
428

For a full treatment of the biblical evidence, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 1-22; C.
Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, Bonner biblische Beitrage 94
(Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995); ©. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh:
Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998), 15-57; P. Merlo, La dea Asratum — Atiratu — Ašera: Un contributo alla storia della
religione semitica del Nord (Mursia: Pontificia Université Lateranense, 1998); and J. M. Hadley,
The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of
Cambridge Oriental Publications 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000). See also N. Wyatt,
“Asherah,” DDD, 99-105; J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 42-67; P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel
(London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2000), 29-40; and Z. Zevit, The Religions
of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London/New York: Continuum, 2001),
472, 478, 537-38, 650-52, 677. For recent discussions of the interpretational problems pertaining to
Asherah and her symbol, the asherah, see also Oden, Studies, 88-102; A. L. Perlman, “Asherah and
Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literature” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union,
1978); A. Angerstorfer, “Asherah als — ‘consort of Jahwe’ oder AS8irtah?” BN 17 (1982): 7-16;
Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 1-20; U. Winter, Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und
ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Testament und in desen Umwelt, OBO
53 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 479-538, 551-60; J.
Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,” JBL 105 (1986): 385-408;
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 26-30; Smith, “God Male and Female,” 333-40; R. Hestrin,
“The Lachish Ewer and the Asherah,” /ጄ/ 37 (1987): 212-23. For a survey of data pertaining to
Asherah, including the South Arabic evidence, see Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 59-65. For
further comments on the South Arabic evidence, see M. Hofner, Sudarabien, Saba’, Oataban und
anderen, Worterbuch der Mythologie 1/6 (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1965), 497. For the vocalization of
Ugaritic 'atrt as *'atiratu but possibly *'atirtu, see Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary, 111-12, 283.
The goddess's name in the Canaanite myth of Elkunirsa (ANET, 519) is given either as o44-se-er-
du-us (with Hittite declensional endings) or the Akkadianized forms, “4-Se-er-tum or SA “A-Se-er-ti
(H. A. Hoffner, “The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered,” Revue Hittite et Asianique 23 [1965]: 6 n. 5).

429

Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 6-9, 29, 34. Ahlstróm (Aspects of Syncretism, 51) and
Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 7) have noted that 2 Kings 13:6 indicates that the cults of
Baal and the asherah were separate in Samaria. D. N. Freedman argues that behind 2 Kings 13:6 lies
a different historical picture, that after the cult of Baal was removed from Samaria, the goddess
Asherah was no longer paired with Baal but with Yahweh (“Yahweh of Samaria and His Asherah,”
BA 50 [1987]: 248). Olyan’s demonstration that Baal and Asherah were not paired in the Late
Bronze Age or the Iron Age vitiates Freedman’s view of 2 Kings 13:6 (Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, 38-61). Freedman also argues that ‘asmat soméron in Amos 8:14 alludes to the goddess.
Other interpretations are feasible. The word ‘aSmat could be a negative reference to the “name”
(sem) of Yahweh; if so, derek in Amos 8:14 might be an aspect of Yahweh related to Ugaritic drkt,
“power, dominion” (see Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 264 n. 54; n. 136 below). If so, ‘asmat as a
biform of the word sém is anomalous for BH generally and for Amos specifically (cf. sm in Amos
2:7; 5:8; 6:10; 9:6, 12); nonetheless, it is possible (cf. Aramaic ‘smbt’] in AP 22:124). For the view
that ‘aSmat in Amos 8:14 might be an allusion, see the discussion in M. Cogan, “Ashima,” DDD,
105-6. In any case, Freedman’s proposal for 'asmat enjoys no more certitude than other proposals.
Freedman’s arguments for allusions to the goddess Asherah in Amos 2:17 and Ezek. 8:3 are
ingenious, though unconvincing. The “Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 44:15-30) may not be Asherah, as
Freedman suggests. She never bears this title in the extant texts, unlike Astarte, and to a lesser
extext, Anat and Ishtar (so Olyan, “Some Observations,” 161-74).

430
Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 3-19.

431
Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 8.
432

Origen’s Hexapla marks “the prophets of Asherah” with an asterisk indicating that these words are
an addition in Origen’s text of the Septuagint. For discussion, see J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. S. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1951), 310; Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 16; E. Lipinski, “The Goddess ’Atirat in
Ancient Arabia, in Babylon and in Ugarit,” OLP 3 (1972): 114; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, 8. Against the view of D. N. Freedman (“Yahweh of Samaria,” 248), recognizing that the
reference to asherah in this verse is a secondary addition need not be resolved through emendation,
only that the addition reflects a secondary stage in the development of the verse.

433
M. Noth, Exodus; A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (London: SCM, 1962), 262; Childs,
The Book of Exodus, 608; Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage, 64; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, 18. For similar analyses, see F. Langlamet, “Israél et ‘l’inhabitant du pays’; Vocabulaires et
formules d’Ex., xxxiv, 11-16,” RB 76 (1969): 323-24.

434
See Langlamet, “Israél;” 324-25, 483-90.

435

See Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 4-5. For examples of this dichotomy used in discussion
of the asherah, see J. C. de Moor, “*sherah;” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol.
1, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, trans. J. T. Willis, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977), 444; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 26. On the further uses and abuses of the term
“Canaanite religion,” see also Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable,” 253-69. Further examples of
the types of works that Hillers discusses include Oldenburg, The Conflict, 1; Mendenhall, The Tenth
Generation, 226; cf. de Moor, “The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit,” 1-20.

436
Ahlstróm, Aspects of Syncretism, 50-34.
437

J. R. Engle, “Pillar Figurines of Iron Age and Asherah/Asherim” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Pittsburgh, 1979), 55, 62; cf. Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 221-22; Ahlström, “An Archaeological
Picture,” 136; Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 86. See also T. A. Holland, “A Survey of Palestinian
Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines, with Special Reference to Jerusalem: Cave I,” Levant 9 (1977):
121-51. For considerations of Engle’s view, with a survey of evidence, see also Hadley, The Cult of
Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 196-205. For further discussion, see R. Kletter, “Between
Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Asherah,” in Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias,
JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 179-216; and E. C. LaRocca-Pitts, “Of
Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters,
HSM 61 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 161-204.

438

R. Hestrin, “Israelite and Persian Periods,” in Highlights of Archaeology, The Israel Museum,
Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1984), 172.

439

Albright, “Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim,” in Melanges syriens offerts à M.
René Dussaud, vol. 1 (Paris: Geuthner, 1939), 102-20.

440
Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 87.
441

On the nature of the asherah, see W. L. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament (Fort Worth, TX:
Texas Christian University, 1949); J. Barr, “Seeing the Wood for the Trees? An Enigmatic Ancient

Translation,” JSS 13 (1968): 11-20; J. B. Carter, “The Masks of Ortheia,” American Journal of
Archaeology 91 (1987): 355-83; Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult
of Yahweh, 1-3. For scepticism about the “dendrical associations of Asherah,” see S. A. Wiggins,
“Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern
Religions 1/1 (2001): 158-86. E. Lipinski (“The Goddess 'Atirat," 101-19), A. Perlman (“Asherah
and Astarte"), and P. K. McCarter ("Aspects of the Religion," 148-49) deny the relationship
between the goddess Asherah and the symbol asherah.

442
H. Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), 441.
443

Danby, The Mishnah, 441. For other discussions of the asherah in the Mishnah and Talmud, see C.
E. Hayes, Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting for Halakhic Difference in
Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zarah (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 63-66,
102-4, 111-13, 115-16.

444
See Y. Aharoni, “Lachish,” EAEHL 3:749.

445
K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, HAT 1 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1937), 35-36;
Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 84; de Moor, “*sherah, ” 443.

446

So Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 215-17. See Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal, nos. 1661, 1664,
1680, 1685, 1688, 1691 (?), 1692.
447

Carter, “The Masks of Ortheia,” 373-74. For discussion and pictures of the piece, see Syria 10
(1929): 292-93 and pl. 56; C. F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica, Mission de Ras Shamra 3 (Paris: Librairie
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939), 32-33, frontpiece and pl. 11; ANEP nos. 464, 303; A. Caquot and
M. Sznycer, Ugaritic Religion, Iconography of Religions XV, 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 22 and pls. 4,
5; R. W. Barnett, “Ancient Ivories in the Middle East,” Oedem 14 (1982): 30 and pl. 124b. Carter
identifies the cult of Ortheia in Sparta as Phoenician inspired. She argues that Ortheia may be the
Greek name for Asherah/Tannit, and that her cult symbol, the upright wooden object, was the local
realization of the asherah.

448
P. Beck, “The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrüd),” TA 9 (1982): 3-86, esp. 13-16;
Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23.

449
Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 221-22; idem, “Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 68-71. On the inscription
on the Lachish ewer, see chapter 1, section 1.

450
Cf. W. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrüd,” BASOR 255
(1984): 26-28.

451.
Hestrin, “Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 68-71, fig. 6; idem, “The Lachish Ewer,” 219; see also Keel,
The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 186-87.

452

For discussion, see B. Stade, The Books of Kings: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, trans. R. E.
Brunnow and P. Haupt (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press;
London: David Nutt, 1904), 293; and J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary,
534.

453

E. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Book 1, part 1 (London/Edinburgh: Williams $: Norgate, 1863),
159; so, among many scholars, M. J. Lagrange, “Études sur les religions sémitiques,” RB 10 (1901):
550 n. 2; J. Gray, J and IT Kings, 2d ed., OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 734; A. Lemaire, “Les
inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qóm et l'ashérah de Yhwh," RB 84 (1977): 606; M. Weinfeld, “Kuntillet
*Ajrüd Inscriptions and Their Significance," SEL 1 (1984): 129 nn. 21- 22; Ahlström, “An
Archaeological Picture,” 135, 144 n. 108; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 144; cf. H.
Gressman, “Josia und das Deuteronomium,” ZAW 1 (1924): 325-26. See also de Moor, " "sherah, "

441. Weinfeld also compares clothing woven for Astarte and Athena (“The Kuntillet “Ajrúd
Inscriptions," 129 n. 22). Ahlstrom relates the textiles discovered at Kuntillet *Ajrüd to BH battim.

454

W. F. Baudissen, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (Leipzig: F. W. Grunnow, 1876-70),
221-22; M. J. Lagrange, Etudes sur les religions semitiques (Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1905), 175; Smith,
Religion of the Semites, 186.

433
A. Abu-Rabia, Folk Medicine Among the Bedouin Tribes in the Negev (Beersheba: The Jacob
Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1983), 21; cf. T.
Canaan, Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1927), 36-37.

456
L. Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8 (1949): 172-93; D. B. Weisberg,
“Wool and Linen Material in Texts from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar,” E7 16 (1982 = H. Orlinsky
Festschrift): 224*-225*; de Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit, 110.

457
See R. G. Boling and G. E. Wright, Joshua, AB 6 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 540.

458
Achilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon 2:14. See S. Gaselee, Achilles Tatius,
Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917), 81-
85. For further discussion, see M. Delcor, “The Selloi of the Oracle of Dodona and the Oracular

Priests of the Semitic Religions,” in Religion d’Israel et Proche Orient Ancien: Des Phéniciens aux
Esseniens (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 116-23.

459

Herodotus, History 2:56 (Godley, Herodotus, vol. 1, 344-45).
460

See Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 15.
461

Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 189; Oden, Studies, 154. See also de Moor, “Diviners’
Oak,” IDBSup, 243-44; Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 25; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 158.

462

See J. A. Robinson, The Mishna on Idolatry: ‘Aboda Zara, Texts and Studies, Contributions to
Biblical and Patristic Literature, vol. 8, no. 2 (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1911; reprinted,
Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1967), 60-61.

463
Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 9.
464

Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61; cf. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 391. De
Moor (“ Asherah, ” 441) argues that in Iron Age Israel Asherah was the consort of Baal because of
the fusion of Baal’s consort, Anat, with Asherah.

465

See Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23; idem, “Israelite and Persian Periods,” 72; Weinfeld,

“Kuntillet *Ajrúd Inscriptions,” 121-22; P. D. Miller, “The Absence of the Goddess in Israelite

Religion,” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 239-48; and The Religion of Ancient Israel, 29-40.
466

See J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 180; Olyan, “The
Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” ZAW 99 (1987): 254-59. I thank Professor Olyan for bringing the
biblical reference to my attention.

467

For further discussion of this verse, see section 4 below.
468

De Moor, “Diviners’ Oak,” 243-44.
469

Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 366. For further
discussion of Jer. 2:27 and this pairing, see below in section 4.

470

See Freedman and Andersen, Hosea, 365-66. For criticisms of Hos. 4:12 as a reference to the
asherah, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 19-20.

471.

I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo “ed (London: Soncino, 1938), 114; I. Epstein, ed.,
Hebrew English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, trans. H. Freedman, rev. ed. (London:
Soncino, 1967), ad loc. My thanks go to W. Holladay, who brought to my attention the following
description of the temple of Astarte standing at the grotto of the Afqa River at Khirbet Afqa in Syria
about twenty-three miles northeast of Beirut, midway between Byblos and Baalbeq: “The river
Adonis emerges from a huge grotto in the side of precipitous rock nearly 650 ft. high.... On the rock
facing the grotto there is a platform where you will see the remains of a Roman temple.... The
sacred character of the place has been strengthened by tradition. The inhabitants place oil-lamps
beneath the vault which they light in honour of the ‘lady? who haunts this region. There is here a
curious mixture of cults; both Shiites and Christians come to worship the Zahra, who, in Lebanon,
was Venus’ successor. The Christians affirm that the ruins of Afqa are those of a church dedicated to
the Virgin. Nearby there is a fig tree on which pieces of the clothing of sick people are hung in order
to bring about their recovery; this has the same function as the sacred tree in antiquity” (The
Guidebook, The Middle East — Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Hachette World Guides [Paris:
Hachette, 1966], 176; for more details of the site, see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 75-78).

472
For discussion of the dating, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 23.

473
Z. Meshel, *Kuntillat *Ajrüd — An Israelite Site from the Monarchial Period on the Sinai Border,”
Qadmoniot 9 (1976): 118-24; idem, *Kuntillet *Ajrüd — An Israelite Religious Center in Northern
Sinai,” Expedition 20 (1978): 50-54; idem, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” Biblical Archaeologist
Review 5/2 (1979): 24-34; J. Naveh, “Graffiti and Dedications,” BASOR 235 (1979): 27-30;
Weinfeld, *Kuntillet *Ajrud Inscriptions," 121-30; Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qóm,”
595-608; idem, “Date et origine des inscriptions paléo-hebraiques et phéniciennes de Kuntillet
‘Ajrûd,” SEL 1 (1984): 131-43; Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?” 21-37. The bibliographical
items listed in n. 1 also provide discussions of these inscriptions. The epigraphic evidence is
summarized in W. A. Maier III, ’Aserah: Extrabiblical Evidence, HSM 37 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars,
1986); and Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 23-37.

474

In the first edition of this book, I followed the standard translation, “to.” S. Parker (Hebrew Studies
33 [1992]: 161) comments: “The expression means “bless someone to a deity.’ To say ‘I bless you to
Yahweh’ is to report that in praying to Yahweh one says ‘bless PN.’ In other words it is tantamount
to saying ‘I am praying for you.’”

475

See Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 14-19; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 26-
28; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 143.

476
Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 14-19.
477

M. Gilula, “To Yahweh Shomron and His Asherah,” Shnaton 3-4 (1978-79): 129-37 (Heb.; English
summary 15-16); Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 3, 12-13; Weinfeld, “Kuntillet “Ajrúd

Inscriptions,” 125; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 139. “His” asherah would refer to Yahweh,
whereas “its” asherah would refer to Samaria. The pottery discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrüd includes
“Samaria ware” (see J. Gunneweg, I. Perlman, and Z. Meshel, “The Origin of the Pottery of
Kuntillet *Ajrüd," JEJ 35 [1985]: 270-83), enhancing the interpretation of yhwh Smrn as referring to
Samaria.

478

McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 140-41. On RS 1986/2235.17, see P. Bordreuil, *Découvertes
épigraphiques récentes à Ras ibn Hani et à Ras Shamra," CRAIBL 1987, 298.

479

For discussion, see M. Dietrich, “Die Parhedra in Pantheon von Emar: Miscellanea Emariana (I),"
UF 29 (1997): 115-22; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 27, 34; Smith, The Origins of
Biblical Monotheism, 72-73; A. P. Xella, *Le dieu et «sa» déesse: l'utilisation des Suffixes
pronominaux avec des théonymes d'Ebla à Ugarit et à la Kuntillet *Ajrud," UF 27 (1995): 599-610;
and Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 403. /'atrty (KTU 2.31.39) occurs in a broken context.
In RS 16.394:60, PRU II (9-10) reconstructs /l/atr/ty/; KTU 2.31.60 reads /* atr[t]x. Ugaritic
‘il’ib, “god, father” or divine ancestral father, occurs with pronominal suffixes (e.g., KTU 1.17 I
27). On this figure, see chapter 1 n. 105. CTA 33 (KTU 1.43).13 may provide another Ugaritic
example of divine name plus suffix, /‘nth, but the reading is uncertain (see CTA 116 n. 8; M.
Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, “Die ugaritischen und hebráischen Gottes-namen,” UF7
[1975]: 553). KTU reads /'nth* without additional comment. Cf. AN.DA.MU-ia usually read as
dDA.MU-ia, “my Damu,” in EA 84:33 and hattammüz in Ezek. 8:14. For an alternative
understanding of the deity in EA 84:33, see N. Na’aman, “On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the
Amarna Letters,” UF 22 (1990): 248-50, who believes the AN.DA.MU-ia is a title of the goddess
known as “The Lady of Byblos” (cf. 132.53-55). This issue would affect the relevance of
AN.DA.MU-ia for the category of divine names with pronominal suffixes.

480
Gilula, “To Yahweh Shomron,” 134-37; Naveh, “Graffiti and Dedications,” 28; Ahlstróm, “An
Archaeological Picture,” 20; idem, Royal Administration, 43; Dever, “Asherah, Consort of
Yahweh?” 21-37; Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,
28. See the comments of Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439-40. Before the discovery of the
inscriptions, A. T. Olmstead, Ahlström, and other scholars anticipated this conclusion (see
Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism, 50-54; idem, “Some Remarks on Prophets and Cult,” in
Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J. C. Rylaarsdam (Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1968), 121. In previous discussions I held out for this possibility (Smith, “God Male and
Female,” 333-40; idem, “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion,” ZAW
100 [1988]: 426).

481
Z. Zevit, “The Khirbet el-Qöm Inscription Mentioning a Goddess,” BASOR 255 (1984): 39-47.

482
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 30; see also Rainey, “The Toponyms,” 4.

483
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 28-29.

484

As Zevit (The Religions of Ancient Israel, 403 n. 110) rightly asks: “What would it have meant to
say that the goddess belonged to or was possessed by Yahweh?” (Zevit’s italics).

485

Lipiński, “The Goddess ‘Atirat,” 101-19; idem, “The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and
Goddess (Review Article)," IEJ 36 (1986): 87-96; cf. McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 145. For
a Phoenician inscription from Akko with ’srt as “shrine(s),” see M. Dothan, “A Phoenician
Inscription,” 81-94. McCarter (“Aspects of the Religion," 145) relates the BH ‘asérah to ’srt in a
third-century Phoenician text from Ma‘sub bearing the dedication “to Ashtart in the asherah of Baal
Hamon,” /‘strt b ‘srt b ‘1 hmn (KAI 19:4). Peckham (‘Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel," 91 n. 24)

compares Phoenician inscriptions from "Umm el-*Amed and Pyrgi where an asherah is reserved for
Astarte. In these instances, the Phoenician word means “shrine” or the like.

486
Meshel, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” 31.
487

M. H. Pope, “Response to Sasson on the Sublime Song,” Maarav 2/2 (1980): 210-11; Engle, “Pillar
Figurines,” 84-85.

488

See the remarks of Pardee, “The New Canaanite Myths and Legends,” 274; Cooper, “Divine Names
and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 342.

489

McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,’ 137-55. McCarter is followed by J. S. Burnett, A
Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, SBLDS 183 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 91 n.
36.

490

S. D. McBride, “The Deuteronomistic Name Theology” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1969),
135-37; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 11, 30-31; T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement
of Sabaoth; Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup, 1982), 38-79,
123-30; L. Laberge, “Le lieu que YHWH a choisi pour mettre son Nom,” Estudios Bíblicos 43
(1985): 209-36; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion," 155 n. 62. Examples of *Siml*Sum in
Northwest Semitic personal names include Phoenician sm, “Name” (KAI 54:1), smzbl, “Name is
prince” (KAI 34:4), sm dny, “Name is lord” (see Gianto, “Some Notes on the Mulk Inscription from
Nebi Yunis (RES 367)," Biblica 68 (1987): 397-400), Elephantine ‘smbyt’/, “Name of Bethel” (AP
22:124; Oden, Studies, 126-27), and Shimil in Armenian Ahigar 1:4 (OTPs 2:486 n. 50). See Cross,
“Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,” 3; P. Bordreuil, “Mizz@bul 16: à propos de Psaume
49:15,” in Ascribe to the Lord; Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L.
Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 93-98. In addition to the Akkadian
examples cited by McBride, “sum is also attested in Eblaite names (Pomponio, “I nomi divini,” 152,
156) and one name from Emar (Emar 52:2). The long-standing view of the Deuteronomistic Sem
theology has been questioned recently by Sandra Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the
Place of the Name, BZAW 318 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002, in press). As a result, a serious
reassessment of the extent of sem in Deuteronomistic passages will be made. Passages such as 1
Kings 8 will likely hold up. Further consideration of non-Dtr passages with “the name” (e.g., Isa.
30:27, Ps. 29:2 [?]) needs to be included in the discussion. See further p. 142 below.

aL

On pánim, “face,” as divine hypostasis in both Phoenician and Israelite religion, see Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28. For the incantation from Egypt, see R. C. Steiner, “The
Scorpion Spell from Wadi Hammamat: Another Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JNES 60 (2001):
259-68. Secular usage of this term occurs in Gen. 33:10, Exod. 10:28-29 (cf. 2 Sam. 17:11; Rashi on
Exod. 33:15), and the Late Bronze antecedents cited in chapter 4, section 1. RS 25.318 provides
further background. The inscription, found on a lion rhyton, calls the rhyton pn ‘arw, “the face of
the lion” (see M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Die keilalphabetische Krugausschrift RS 25.318,” in
Ugaritica VI, ed. C. E A. Schaeffer, Mission de Ras Shamra 18 [Paris: P. Geuthner; Leiden: Brill,
1978]: 147-48; U. Zebulun, “A Canaanite Ram-Headed Cup,” JEJ 37 [1987]: 96-99); cf. the name
pnsmlt, “face of image” (KAI 57). These examples may illustrate in the secular realm what “Tannit,
face of Ba‘l,” int pn b‘T (e.g., KAT 78:2; 79:1, 10-11; 85:1; 86:1; 137:1; cf. 87:1) and mtp’n b ‘1 (e.g.,
KAI 94:1; 97:1; 102:1; 105:1; cf. 164:1 attested in various Punic and neo-Punic sites from Tunisia
and elsewhere, signified in the sacred realm, namely, that Tannit was the representation of Baal. On
phanebalos, “face of Baal,” on Roman coins from Ashkelon, see Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan, 129; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28; for the Greek place name for a cape
north of Byblos, prosopon theou, “face of God,” see Harden, The Phoenicians, 79. “The face of
God” stands as a hypostasis for God in Odes of Solomon 25:4 (OTPs 2:758). Divine hypostases of
the face and name may be one of several Israelite ways of referring to the divine military retinue of
Yahweh. Given the attestation of such terms in Ugaritic and Phoenician, the origins of this usage
predate biblical usage. Unlike the usages in the wider West Semitic world, the biblical usage is not

associated with other deities. Another old way of describing the divine military retinue is to name
other divinities as part of the retinue (Hab. 3:5). For these forms of the divine retinue, see Smith,
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 47, 68, 74-76. A third way of referring to the retinue in its
destructive function is as mashitim as in Gen. 19:3 (see p. 38 above). For 'Élohím as a possible
fourth way, see Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, 79-119. This would comport with only
divine pluralities (e.g., b ‘Im and rspm) which appear to be military in character (Smith, The Origins
of Biblical Monotheism, 67-68). PE 1.10.20 which refers to elohim as the allies of Elos would
constitute a good parallel for Burnett’s proposal.

492
See chapter 2, section 4.
493

The Northwest Semitic attestations of the root *’tr suggest the base meaning of “to be/go after/to.”
Ugaritic atr, Akkadian 'asru, and Phoenician ‘sr mean “place” (see n. 58 above for references; cf.
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, *Ugaritisch 'tr, atr, atryt und atrt," UF 16 [1984]: 57-62). The Ugaritic
and Akkadian forms of the noun secondarily marked subordinate clauses denoting place (see A.
Rainey, “Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,” UF 3 [1971]: 162; D. Pardee, *A Further Note on
PRU V, No. 60," UF 13 [1981]: 152, 156); this usage formed the basis for the development of BH
‘aser and Moabite ‘sr as a marker for relative clauses (see Garr, Dialect Geography, 85, 87). The
Ugaritic preposition ‘afr means “after” (for attestations in mythological texts, see del Olmo Lete,
Mitos y leyendas, 519). Like later BH ’aser and Moabite ’sr, the preposition apparently developed
from accusative of place. In the Sefire inscription (KAI 222 B 3), the prep. b- plus the noun *'sr
means “in the place of” and refers to a successor (see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of
Sefire, Biblica et Orientalia 19 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], 18-19; cf. BA tor
“place,” in Dan. 2:35; 6:3, 5, 7; Ezra 5:15 and the preposition *ba tar, “after,” in Dan. 2:39; 7:6, 7).
This sense of the root apparently underlies the Ugaritic noun ’utryn, “successor” (cf. Huehnergard,
Ugaritic Vocabulary, 112), referring to the heir apparent (Rainey, “Observations,” 169). BH *’sr
(and perhaps Ugaritic *’ fr) mean “to go, advance” (BDB, 80). Albright’s (Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan, 105; Archaeology and the Religion of Israel [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965], 76)
interpretation of Asherah’s name as a verbal sentence, i.e., ‘afrt ym, “she who treads on the sea [or,
sea-dragon],” is more semantically consistent with the Northwest Semitic attestations of the root
(see Oden, Studies, 72, 93). None of the proposed explanations for 'atrt ym is satisfactory, however.

494
For various proposals, see chapter 2, section 4.
495
See chapter 2, section 1.
496
McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 138; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 32.
497

Ahlstrém, Royal Administration, 40-43. J. M. Hadley (“Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two
Pithoi from Kuntillet *Ajrüd," VT 37 [1987]: 180-213) argues that Kuntillet *Ajrüd served as a
caravanserel.

498
See Gunneweg, Perlman, and Meshel, *The Origin," 270-83.
499

See Zevit, “The Khirbet el-Qóm Inscription"; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 29-30; J. M.
Hadley, “The Khirbet el-Qóm Inscription," VT 37 (1987): 50-62; M. O'Connor, *The Poetic
Inscription from Khirbet el-Qóm," VT 37 (1987): 224-30. A. Catastini ("Note di epigrafia ebraica I-
IL" Henoch 6 [1984]: 129-38) interprets ‘srt as G passive participle meaning “cursed,” derived from
*’sr, "blessed," an unlikely semantic development given what is known of the root (discussed above
in n. 66). For the bench tomb where the inscription was found, see W. G. Dever, “El-Qóm, Khirbet,”
EAEHL 4:976-77.

300

See Introduction n. 6; and Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?” 21-37; Lemaire, “Les inscriptions
de Khirbet el-Qóm,” 595-608; Freedman, “Yahweh of Samaria,” 241-49; Hestrin, “The Lachish
Ewer,” 212-23; Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 255; idem, Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, xiv, 1-22, 33, 35, 74; Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah; Day,
Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 42-67; Dijkstra, “‘I Have Blessed You by YHWH
of Samaria and His Asherah’: Texts with Religious Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient
Israel,” in B. Becking et al., eds., Only One God? 17-44; Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 16-57; and
Zevit, 472, 478, 537-38, 650-52, 677.

501

B. Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology, The
Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 1 (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 39-40; Miller, “Absence of
the Goddess,” 239-48; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 26-30; Winter, Frau und Góttin, 551-
60; Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs; Korpel, “Asherah Outside
Israel,” in B. Becking et al., Only One God? 127-50.

502

See chapter 1, section 4.
503

Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61.
504

BDB (p. 81) lists the following passages as references to the goddess: 1 Kings 15:3; 18:19; 2 Kings
21:7; 23:4, 7. Reed (“Asherah,” IDB 1:251) interprets 2 Kings 21:7 as the image of the goddess and
2 Kings 32:4 as a reference to the goddess. Dever (“Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?” 31) cites Judg.
3:7; 1 Kings 18:19; and 2 Kings 23:4 as references to the goddess. He takes 2 Kings 21:7 as a
reference to the image or furnishing for Asherah. Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 2 n. 7)
asserts that 2 Kings 21:7 and 23:4 are references to the goddess. Olyan (“Cultic Confessions of Jer
2,27a,” 254-59) adds Jer. 2:27 to the list. De Moor (““shérah,” 441) presents quite a different
picture: “When one compares 2 K. 23:4-6 with 23:13 f., the cult object ‘asherah seems to be
connected with both the Asherah cult (in v. 4 probably a proper name; cf. 21:7) and the Astarte
cult.” A comparable position is argued below with respect to 1 Kings 18:19 and Judg. 3:7.

505

See chapter 1, section 2; and chapter 2, section 1.
0

¡e

See chapter 1, section 3.
507

See Olyan, “Some Observations,” 161-74; see also M. Held, “Studies in Biblical Lexicography in
Light of Akkadian,” El 16 (1982): 76-85. Morton Smith, “The Veracity of Ezekiel, the Sins of
Manasseh, and Jeremiah 44:18,” ZAW 87 (1975): 11-16; cf. K. Koch, “Ashera als Himmelskónigin
in Jerusalem,” UF 20 (1988): 97-120. For iconographic evidence for Ishtar in Israel in the seventh
and sixth centuries, see T. Ornan, “Ištar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” in Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias,
JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 235-52. This evidence bolsters the case
for Ishtar as the “Queen of Heaven.” For further discussion with evidence from material culture and
additional bibliography, see P. J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, Library of Ancient
Israel (Louisville/London: Westminster/John Knox, 2001), 350.

508

Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 71,91; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 57 n. 84.
509

See Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 91; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 58.
510

On Tannit, see references in Introduction n. 11.

511

See R. S. Tomback, 4 Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages,
SBLDS 32 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978), 23.

212
See chapter 2, section 1.
213

See Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59. If Olyan's interpretation is correct, then Jer.
2:23-28 would include a polemic against both the cult of Yahweh and Asherah, on the one hand, and
on the other hand, Baal (2:23 and LXX 2:28b). For the evidence on LXX 2:28b, see W. L. Holladay,
Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25, Hermeneia
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 54; W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Jeremiah, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1986), 47.

314
Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59.
215

Besides the scholars cited by Olyan (“Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 255), see Day, “Asherah in
the Hebrew Bible,” 408; and Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 104.

316
Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 13-14.
ታፈረ

Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 16 n. 10; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 35-
36.

518

See the references in n. 74 above.
519

See Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61.
520

See ANET, 519. For a critique of the use of this material in this way, see Olyan, Asherah and the
Cult of Yahweh, 43.

521

See chapter 2, section 2. For the textual differences in the formulas of “the baals and the
asherahs/astartes,” see Oden, Studies, 97-98. Baal and Astarte are coupled together also in PE
1.10.31: “Greatest Astarte and Zeus, called both Demarous and Adodos, king of gods, were ruling
over the land with the consent of Kronos,” Astarté de he megiste kai Zeus Demarous kai Adodos
basileus theon ebasileuon tes chords Kronou gnomé (Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 54-55).
For a cultic functionary who was both a prophet of Baal and a prophet of Astarte in the time of
Akhenaten, see ANET, 250 n. 13.

522
Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 80.
523
Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 39-46.
524
See chapter 5.
525

See G. Bostróm, Proverbiastudien: Die Weisheit und das fremde Weib in Spr. 1-9 (Lund: Gleerup,
1935), 12-14, 135f.; H. Ringgren, Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine
Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East (Lund: Hákan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1947), 132-
34; L. A. Snidjers, “The Meaning of zär in the Old Testament: An Exegetical Study,” OTS 10

(1954): 63; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, trans. J. D. Martin (London: SCM, 1970), 167; R. J.
Clifford, “Proverbs IX: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel,” VT 25 (1975): 305; B. Lang, Wisdom and
the Book of Proverbs: A Hebrew Goddess Redefined (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1986). Concerning
Ugaritic parallels to Proverbs 9, see Clifford, “Proverbs IX,” 298-306; cf. M. Lichtenstein, “The
Banquet Motifs in Keret and in Proverbs 9,” JANES 1/1 (1968): 19-31; J. C. Greenfield, “The Seven
Pillars of Wisdom (Prov. 9:1) — A Mistranslation,” JOR 76 (1985 = Moshe Held Memorial
Volume): 18 n. 25. For other opinions concerning the history of religion background to the figure of
Wisdom, see H. Conzelmamn, “The Mother of Wisdom,” in The Future of Our Religious Past:
Essays in Honor of Rudolf Bultmann, ed. J. M. Robinson, trans. C. Carlson and R. Scharlemann
(New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 230-43; G. Fohrer, “Sophia,” Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, vol. 7, ed. G. Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),
477-90; Winter, Frau und Géttin, 508-29; C. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of
Proverbs, Bible and Literature Series 11 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 23-68. See further S. Schroer, Die
Weisheit hat ihr Haus gebaut: Studien der Sophia in den biblischen Schriften (Mainz: Matthias
Grunewald Verlag, 1996).

526
Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine, 95, 103, 106, 115, 133, 187-90, 276, 283.
327

Coogan, “Canaanite Origins and Lineage,” 119-20; Miller, “Absence of the Goddess,” 246; Smith,
“God Male and Female,” 337; cf. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 326. Coogan links the
descriptions of Sophia in Wisdom of Solomon 7-8 to the cult of Yahweh and the asherah as well (cf.
G. Quispel, “Jewish Gnosis and Mandean Gnosticism,” in Nag Hammadi Studies VII, ed. J. E.
Menard [Leiden: Brill, 1975], 93).

328

Cf. Prov. 11:30; 15:4; Gen. 3:22; Rev. 2:7. The traditions lying behind the “tree of life” in Gen. 3:22
are complex. Besides the tradition of the goddess’s tree and the snake evident in this story, further
traditions of sanctuary and divine abode (cf. Ezek. 28:12-19) are present. For details, see F. Stulz,
“Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon,” ZAW 82 (1972): 141- 56; Lambert, “Trees,
Snakes, and Gods,” 435-51; and H. N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars, 1985), 60-172. On the divine waters of Gen. 2:10, see also chapter 1, section 6. For
Mesopotamian iconography of the sacred tree especially in the context of a sanctuary, see E.
Dhorme, “L’arbre de verite et l’arbre de vie,” RB 4 (1907): 271-74; van Buren, Symbols of the Gods,
3-4, 22-30. The snake of Genesis 2-3 need not be associated with a cosmic enemy of Baal (so
Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 18-43). Since the snake appears with the goddess
(perhaps Asherah), in ANEP, nos. 470-474 (cf. no. 480), these depictions provide a better point of
departure for addressing the biblical traditions. See also the serpent on a shrine model from Beth-
Shan (ANEP. no. 590; A. Rowe, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan, fig. 10, no. 14; cf.
ANEP no. 585; E. Stern, Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976); Part Two: The Bronze Age,
Qedem 18 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984], 22-23).

229

I wish to thank Professor Anthony Ceresko for pointing out to me in a private communication the
paronomasia evoking the asherah in the use of the root *’Sr in this passage. For criticism of this
view, see Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 66-67. Day’s discussion ignores the
argument that wisdom personified may be modelled on Asherah or her connotations associated with
the tree as a foil or counteradvertisement.

330

See G. T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientalizing of the Old
Testament, BZAW 151 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 52-55. For text-critical issues,
see P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday,
1987), 145.

221.
Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 334-35.
532

Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 171. The medieval female personification of the
Shekinah, the divine presence, has been connected with the personification of Wisdom (Pope, Song
of Songs, 158-79).

533

Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 404-6. Cf. Prov. 16:20; 29:18b. For a thorough critique of this
interpretation, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 20-21.

334

See Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 404-5. See Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the
Ugaritic Texts,” 401.

528

Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 404 n. 59.
536

See above chapter 2, section 4.
537

See Yee, Composition and Tradition, 137, 139. For discussion of Hosea 2, see above, chapter 2,
section 2. Given the possible appearance of asherah in the book of Hosea, Hosea’s use of love
language between Yahweh and Israel may represent a transformation of divine love language
attested in Canaanite texts.

538

Yee, Composition and Tradition, 131-42, 317.
539

See Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 129-36.
540

Yee, Composition and Tradition, 138.
541

Pope, Song of Songs, 465, 468; idem, “Sasson on the Sublime Song,” 213.
542

Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 424-27.
543

The connection between the two texts has been noted also by W. L. Holladay (Jeremiah 1, 104).
544

For the date of Deuteronomy 32, see chapter 1, n. 39.
545

P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 63.
546

J. W. Miller, “Depatriarchalizing God in Biblical Interpretation: A Critique,” CBQ 48 (1986): 609-
16.

247

Trible, *Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation," Journal of the American Academy of Religion
41 (1973): 30-48; idem, “God, Nature of, in the OT," IDBSup, 368-69; idem, God and the Rhetoric
of Sexuality, 12-33. On the passages in Second and Third Isaiah, see also M. Gruber, “The
Motherhood of Second Isaiah,” RB 90 (1983): 351-59; idem, “‘Will a Woman Forget Her Infant?’
Isaiah 49:14 Reconsidered,” Tarbiz 51/3 (1982): 491-92; J. J. Schmitt, “The Motherhood of God
and Zion as Mother,” RB 92 (1985): 557-69. For a critique against interpreting Isa. 42:10-17 as
female imagery for Yahweh, see K. P. Darr, “Like Warrior, like Woman: Destruction and
Deliverance in Isa. 42:10-17,” CBO 49 (1987): 560-71. According to Darr, the force of the activity
that women exhibit in childbirth lies behind the comparison in Isa. 42:10- 17, not an application of

female imagery to Yahweh. Similar argumentation could be made for the other passages that Miller
discusses. For the background of *rhm, see chapter 1, section 4. P. D. Miller (“Absence of the
Goddess,” 246) has independently argued that the language of the goddess has been assimilated into
Yahweh and is reflected in female metaphors applied to Yahweh in various biblical passages.

548

See T. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names, trans. F.
H. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

549
Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 31-71.
550

Gröndahl, Die Personennamen, 46, 83, 86, 90; Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 52. The
most important study of this phenomenon is H. W. Jüngling, “‘Was anders ist Gott fur den
Menschen, wenn nicht sein Vater and seine Mutter?” Zu einer Doppelmetapher der reliogiósen
Sprache,” in Ein Gott allein? ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, 365-86. 124. See chapter 2,
section 2 and chapter 4, section 1. 125. T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once ... : Sumerian Poetry in
Translation (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1987), 361.

251

W. W. Hallo, “Individual Prayers in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition,” JAOS 88 (1968 =
Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo, American Oriental Series 53), 78; S. M. Paul,
“Psalm XXVII 10 and the Babylonian Theodicy,” VT 32 (1982): 490.

352
H. Giiterbock, “The Composition of Hittite Prayers to the Sun,” JAOS 78 (1958): 240.
223

On the aniconic tradition in ancient Israel, see chapter 1, section 6. P. Amiet (Art of the Ancient
Near East, trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1980, 173) argues that
depiction of the high deities in Mesopotamia diminishes beginning in the late second millennium. If
such a view were historically viable, then Israel’s aniconic requirement would belong to this larger
Near Eastern development. See chapter 1, section 4.

254
Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 169, 171; Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings, 14-19.
225

A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of
Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, CRB 20 (Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 102-7. For a similar
argument regarding the priestly source’s substitution of the verb *skn, “to dwell, settle" (e.g., Exod.
24:16), for *yrd, “to descend” (e.g., Exod. 19:11, 18, 20; 33:9; 34:5; Num. 11:17, 25; 12:5), to
describe the motion of divine presence, see Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 81-97.

356

See section 3 above for discussion of Northwest Semitic Sm and pnm. On Sem in biblical literature,
see McBride, “Deuteronomistic Name Theology,” 177-219; cf. the comments made in n. 63 above.
On biblical panim, see J. D. Levenson, “The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary
Experience,” Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. A. Green, World
Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 13 (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 43-
44; M. S. Smith, “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew
Bible,” CBO 50 (1988): 171-83. On kabdéd, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 165-67;
Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 32-66, esp. 59; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 80-
115, 116-22. For discussion of how these divine traits relate to human features designated by these
terms, see for face, R. A. Di Vito, “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal
Identity,” CBQ 61 (1999): 217-38; for name, see p. 122 above and Smith, The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism, 74-76; for glory, see Brettler, God Is King, 56-57.

557

See Clements, /saiah 1-39, 252. The Name in this passage is reminiscent of descriptions of fiery
divine messengers in Ugaritic, biblical tradition, and intertestamental literature, e.g., KTU 1.2 I 33;
Num. 16:22; 27:16; Ps. 104:4; I Enoch 14:11; the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q403, fragment
1, col. 2, line 9; and 40405, fragments 20-21-22, col. 2, line 10); and Rev. 4:5. For discussion, see P.
D. Miller, “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel," CBQ 27 (1965): 256-61; idem, Divine
Warrior, 31; R. Hendel, “‘The Flaming of the Whirling Sword’: A Note on Gen 3:24,” JBL 104
(1985): 671-74; M. S. Smith, “Biblical and Canaanite Notes to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
from Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 48 (1987): 585-87.

558

See chapter 2, section 4.
559

Childs, The Book of Exodus, 584-97.
560

See McBride, “The Deuteronomistic Name Theology,” 203; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic, 30 n. 102. Exod. 12:23 and 2 Sam. 24:16 use mashit for a divine destroyer. The verbal form
(mashit) refers to divine slaying in the form of a plague in Exod. 12:13 (Childs, The Book of
Exodus, 183; see chapter 1, section 2). Cf. Gen. 3:24 (see n. 132 above).

561

BH derek in Exod. 33:13 may represent another form of divine manifestation. LXX Vaticanus reads
seauton, “yourself,” in this verse to translate dérakeka, not “way,” as represented by Vulgate tuam
viam and Targum ’wrh twbk (see N. M. Waldman, “God’s Ways — A Comparative Note,” JOR 70
[1979-80] : 67-72). This interpretation of this word as “power” may be supported by appeal to
Ugaritic drkt, “dominion” (e.g., KTU 1.2 IV 10, 13; 1.108.7; probably 1.4 VII 44), a connection
made for BH derek in other passages (so Albright, “The North Canaanite Poems of Al’eyan Ba‘al
and the ‘Gracious Gods,’” JPOS 14 [1934]: 130 n. 153; Dahood, “Ugaritic DRKT and Biblical
DEREK,” Theological Studies 15 [1954]: 627-31; Cross, “A Recently Published Phoenician
Inscription,” 43-44; cf. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage, 21 n. 25). The interpretation also accords
well with other terms in this dialogue, which all reflect some type of divine manifestation. I wish to
thank John Strugnell for pointing out this interpretation to me.

562

For discussion, see above pp. 122-23 n. 64. Other instances of such a divine military retinue include
‘Elohim and mashit(im).

363

Concerning BH témúnah, “form,” applied to Yahweh, see Childs, The Book of Exodus , 343. The
denial of seeing God’s form in Deut. 4:12 plays off against the condemnations of (visible) images in
Deut. 4:23, 25. The parallelism between paanéka and temúnáateka in Ps. 17:15 has been compared
with the parallel term, pnth and tmnh, in KTU 1.2 IV 17, 26 (Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic, 33 n. 121). The meaning of Ugaritic “pnt is, however, not “face.” In KTU 1.2 IV 17 and 26,
pnt refers to parts of Yamm’s body that “shake” (tngsn). In KTU 1.3 III 34-35 it is the sinews (ksl)
of Anat’s pnt that “shake” (*ngs). Clearly her face is not under discussion (cf. KTU 1.4 II 19).
Akkadian pandtu, “front side,” is closer to the meaning involved (AHw, 818). Perhaps Ugaritic pnm
and pnt both underlie BH pdnim; in any case, the comparison between KTU 1.2 IV 17, 26 and Ps.
17:15 appears viable. For discussion, see M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Ug. tmn, ‘Gestalt,’ UF 10
(1978): 432-33; J. C. de Moor, “The Anatomy of the Back,” UF 12 (1981): 425-26; cf. M. Baldacci,
“A Lexical Question Concerning the Ugaritic Anath’s Texts,” UF 10 (1978): 417-18.

364

Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic
Cults, Aniconism and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. K. van der
Toorn, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997), 221.
See further chapter 4, section | below.

365
On the divine council, see chapter 1, section 2.
566

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 187. For the “image” and “likeness” in the Tell
Fakhariyeh Inscription and how it relates to Gen. 1:26, see the nuanced discussion of W. R. Garr,
““Tmage’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakharijeh,” /EJ 50 (2000): 227-34.

267

See Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 70, 124; A. Angerstorfer, “Hebráisch dmwt und aramáisch dmwt:
Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre,” BN 24 (1984): 30-43; Smith, “God Male and Female,”
339. Part of the material in Gen. 1:26-28 discussed may predate the priestly or “P” source or
tradition to which the entire chapter is frequently attributed. The poetic tricolon of v. 27 especially
seems to predate its prose context. See U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I,
From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1-VI 8, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), 56. For the
dating of “P,” see A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study; idem, “The Language of the Priestly Source and
Its Historical Setting — The Case for an Early Date,” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of
Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), 83-94; idem, “Dating the Priestly
Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century After Wellhausen,” ZAW 100
(1988): 88-100; B. A. Levine, “Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical
Observations,” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 69-82.

368

In Ugaritic scenes of divine council El proclaims such decrees. KTU 1.16 V may be the Ugaritic
text most relevant to interpreting Gen. 1:26-27, as it describes El telling the divine council that he
will create (causative stem of *kwm) a being. Unfortunately, there is no Ugaritic text describing
human creation. It might be inferred from El’s epithet, bny bnwt, “Creator of creatures,” and
Athirat's title, qnyt "ilm, that El and Athirat created humanity and deities in primordial time,
although these titles do not bear on the creation of the cosmos (for discussion and references, see M.
S. Smith, "Interpreting the Baal Cycle," UF 18 [1987]: 319-20). If so, it would furnish further
Canaanite background, however distant, to the description of creating in Gen. 1:26-27 (so Ahlstróm,
Aspects of Syncretism, 50; Smith, *God Male and Female," 339). Moreover, one instance of the
topos of the divine council in both Ugaritic and biblical literature involves a dialogue of El and
Athirat (KTU 1.61), including the use of the first person plural for this divine couple. However, this
background appears to be so removed from Gen. 1:26-27 that it seems an unlikely parallel. A
further possible example of decreased anthropomorphism involving the divine council may underlie
MT Deut. 32:8. MT substitutes béné ’adam, “people,” for Qumran bny "Ihym, “divine beings” (see
chapter 1, section 2), which may reflect more than a text-critical variant; it also omits an
anthropomorphic description of the divine council.

569

For a discussion of the circles that produced the book of Daniel, see R. R. Wilson, “From Prophecy
to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of Israelite Religion,” in Anthropological Perspectives on
Old Testament Prophecy, ed. R. C. Culley and T. W. Overholt, Semeia 21 (Chico, CA: Scholars,
1982), 79-95. For 1 Enoch, see J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); for
discussion of 1 Enoch 14, see J. J. Collins, “The Place of Apocalypticism in the Religion of Israel,”
in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D.
Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 545.

570

Cf. Cross, Cariaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 135. For the distinctive biblical treatment of some
mythic material, see B. S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical
Theology (London: SCM, 1960), 30-93. While Childs rightly observes how the biblical record
handles mythic material in manners differing from other ancient Near Eastern texts, various Near
Eastern traditions also reflect distinctive treatments. Furthermore, the mythic material evident in
other Near Eastern traditions, especially in Ugaritic literature, suffuses biblical texts more deeply
than Childs’s discussion indicates.

571

For intertestamental apocalyptic literature, see OTPs 1. For discussions of these texts, see J. J.
Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New
York: Crossroad, 1984); C. Rowlands, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and
Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982); M. E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second
Temple Period, Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum 2/II (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984).

372

See I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 1980); Collins, “The Place
of Apocalypticism,” 539-58.

273

M. E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 42-43.

374

For the motif of “seeing God,” see above, p. 143 and below, p. 154. For recent treatments of solar
language applied to Yahweh, see H. P. Stáhli, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten
Testaments, OBO 66 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); M.
S. Smith, ““Seeing God” in the Psalms,” 171-83; idem, Psalms: The Divine Journey (New York/
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1987), 52-61; idem, review of Solare Elemente, by H. P. Stáhli, JBL 106
(1987): 513-15; J. G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun
Worship in Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 111 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); E. Lipinski, “Shemesh,”
DDD, 764-68; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 151-63. See also other works
cited in n. 14 below. See also S. A. Wiggins, “Yahweh: The God of Sun?” JSOT 71 (1996): 89-106,
with a retort by J. G. Taylor, “A Response to Steve A. Wiggins, “Yahweh: The God of Sun?” JSOT
71 (1996): 107-19, answered by S. A. Wiggins, “A Rejoinder to J. Glen Taylor,” JSOT 73 (1997):
109-12. Both writers overargue an extreme view in my opinion, although Taylor’s discussion better
captures what may have been a “popular” view of Yahweh as solar in the Iron II period.

275

F. J. Hollis, *The Sun-Cult and the Temple in Jerusalem," in Myth and Ritual, ed. S. H. Hooke
(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; London: Milford, 1933), 87-110; cf. J. Morgenstern, “Biblical
Theophanies,” ZA 25 (1911): 139-93, ZA 28 (1914): 15-60; idem, The Fire upon the Altar (Leiden:
Brill, 1963); E. Lachman, “The Seraphim of Isaiah 6,” JOR 59 (1968-69): 71-72. For further
discussion, see Ahlstróm, Psalm 89, 85-88; idem, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem, VTSup 21
(Leiden: Brill, 1971), 84 n. 2; J. D. Levenson, *The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary
Experience," 43-44; Smith, ““Seeing God” in the Psalms," 171-83, esp. 175-76.

376

J. W. McKay, “Psalms of Vigil," ZAW 91 (1979): 229-47; A. R. Ceresko, *A Note on Psalm 63: A
Psalm of Vigil," ZAW 92 (1980): 435-36. See n. 13 below.

277

On Ezek. 8:16, see Ahlstróm, Royal Administration, 70; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel /-20, AB 22
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 172; Stahli, Solare Elemente, 9, 46-47. See also the references
inn. 8.

378

See Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, 114-18; H. A. J. Kruger, “Sun and Moon Grinding to a Halt:
Exegetical Remarks on Joshua 10:9-14 and Related Texts in Judges,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies
55 (1999): 1077-97; and note the discussion of astral bodies as divinities in Smith, The Origins of
Biblical Monotheism, 61-66.

379

BDB, 280; C. L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical
Cult, ASOR Dissertation Series 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 145. On “zrh used of Yahweh in
the Kuntillet *Ajrüd inscriptions, see Weinfeld, *Kuntillet * Ajrüd Inscriptions," 126.

380
See Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 47, 58; Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of
Jeremiah, 58 on “zrh, 38-41, 72, 78, 79 on *shr, and 26, 28, 35, 52, 83-87 on “nr. Phoenician names
with the element "n(w)r are found with 5'/ as the theophoric element: b‘Inwr and b‘Inr (see K.
Jongeling, review of Vocabulario Fenicio, by M. J. Fuentes Estafiol, BiOr 42 [1985]: 361).

381

W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. C. Quin, OTL (Philadelphia: SCM, 1970), 127; N.
Sarna, “Psalm XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-god Literature,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish

Studies: Papers, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 171-75; M. Cogan,
Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.E., SBLDS
19 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974), 84-87; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 172; cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel
1, trans. R. E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 244. Cf. J. McKay, Religion in
Judah under the Assyrians, Studies in Biblical Theology, 2d ser., no. 26 (London: SCM, 1973), 21,
32-35, 71, 99 n. 34. H. Schmidt and W. Eichrodt view Ezek. 8:16 as a description of devotion to
Shamash (see Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 127). Greenberg (Ezekiel 1-20, 172) considers possible Aramaean
influence. Zimmerli (Ezekiel /, 244) categorizes the practice in Ezek. 8:16 as “solarized Yahwistic
worship,” although he allows for possible external influence. See further below n. 19.

382

J. W. McKay, “Further Light on the Horses and Chariots of the Sun in the Jerusalem Temple (2
Kings 23:11),” PEO 105 (1973): 167-69; and references in n. 99; M. Weinfeld, “Queen of Heaven,”
UF 4 (1972): 150-52. A bilingual text from Boghazkoi refers to horses of Shamash (see J. S.
Cooper, “Bilinguals from Boghazköi. I,” ZA 62 [1972]: 71, 76; I wish to thank Professor Victor
Hurowitz for this reference).

383

See Holland, “A Survey,” 149-50; Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 87-88. Citing 2 Kings 23:11,
K. Kenyon comments: “It is tempting to call this a sun-disk, and to think of those as miniatures of
‘the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun,’ which Josiah took away” (Royal Cities of
the Old Testament [New York: Schocken Books, 1971], 120). Cf. n. 9. See also E. Mazar,
“Archaeological Evidence for the ‘Cows of Bashan Who Are in the Mountains of Samaria," in
Festschrift Reuben R. Hecht (Jerusalem: Koren, 1979), 151-52. For further archaeological evidence
of solar devotion, see Smith, “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms,” 178-79. For the Israelite or Canaanite
provenience of the Taanach stand, see chapter 1, section four.

384

For a photograph of the stand with an archaeological summary, see A. E. Glock, “Taanach,” in
EAEHL 4:1142-43, 1147.

385
See the discussion in Smith, Psalms, 78 n. 65.
386

For textual support for "or as the sun, see LXX helion, Vulgate solem, and Targumic ’sthr (E.
Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. H. Knight [Nashville/Camden/New York:
Thomas Nelson, 1984], 461). The parallelism with moon also suggests this interpretation (cf. Job
37:21). On the motif of the hand to the mouth as a gesture of prayer, see Dhorme, A Commentary,
462; M. H. Pope, Job, 3d ed., AB 15 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973), 235; chap. 2 n. 67.

387

See Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion,” in The Triumph of Elohim:
From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D. V. Edelman, 67-71; O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods,
Goddesses, and Images of God, trans. T. Trapp (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 283-372; Keel,
Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible,
JSOTSup 261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 102-4; and J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods
and Goddesses of Canaan, 151-84. For the issue of neo-Assyrian influence, see below, n. 19.

388

Gudea Cylinder B, V 109. See G. A. Barton, The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad (New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press; London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University, 1929), 240-41; Jacobsen,
The Harps That Once ... , 429. On Ningirsu in the inscription, see A. Falkenstein, Die Inschrifien
Gudeas von Lagas, I. Einleitung, AnOr 30 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966), 90-101.

389

Or possibly Assur-bel-kala of the mid-tenth century. See Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 44-45.
For the god Assur with the winged solar disk, see van Buren, Symbols of the Gods, 89-90. On the
motif of the “many waters” in Ezek. 43:2, see H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of mayim
rabbím, “Many Waters,”” JBL 74 (1955): 17.

390

Cf. R. Mayer-Opificius, “Die geflügelte Sonne: Himmels und Regendarstellung im Alten
Vorderasien,” UF 16 (1984): 200, 233.

391
ANET, 62, 69-70.
392

See McKay, Religion in Judah; Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 42-61, and “Judah Under
Assyrian Hegemony: A Re-examination of Imperialism and Religion,” JBL 112 (1993): 403-14.
The view is represented by H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, FRLANT 129
(Góttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). See further Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 102-3; S. W.
Holloway, “The Case for Assyrian Religious Influence in Israel and Judah,” (Ph.D. diss., University
of Chicago, 1992); and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 63.

593

R. Labat, Le caractére religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne, Études d' Assyriologie 2 (Paris:
Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient, Adrien-Maissonneuve, 1939), 231-33; cf. Lambert, “Trees,
Snakes, and Gods,” 438-39 n. 25; G. Dossin, with A. Finet, Correspondance Féminine, Archives
royales de Mari 10 (Paris: Geuthner, 1978), 150-51, text 99:5-6. My thanks to Mr. Gary Beckman
for bringing these references to my attention.

304
See ANET, 483-90; McCarter, II Samuel, 484; Hess, “Divine Names,” 158-59, 163.
295

On this letter, see D. Pardee, “Further Studies in Ugaritic Epistolography,” Archiv für
Orientforschung 31 (1984): 219-21; D. Pardee and R. M. Whiting, “Aspects of Epistolary Verbal
Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian,” BSOAS 50 (1987): 8.

396

This Ugaritic passage illustrates the background of another divine title, namely, “great king,” melek
rab in Ps. 48:3 and melek gadol in 2 Kings 18:18, 29; Ps. 47:3; Eccles. 9:14; Isa. 36:4, 13; Mal. 1:14
(see J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the
Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1982], 94; and A. Malamat, “A Political Look at the Kingdom of David and Solomon and Its
Relations with Egypt,” in Studies in the Period, 197). On CTA 64 (KTU 3.1) and its parallels in
Akkadian texts discovered at Ugarit, see M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Der Vertrag zwischen
Suppililuliuma und Niqmadu: Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie,” WO 3/3 (1966):
206-45; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Near East and in the
Old Testament, rev. ed., AnBib 21A (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), 68-69 n. 63.

397

ANET, 484; Moran, Les Lettres d’E/-Amarn, trans. D. Collon and H. Cazelles, LAPO 13 (Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf, 1987), 379. See EA 266:12-15 and Num. 6:25.

398

On the “face” of God, see Smith, ““Seeing God” in the Psalms,” 171-83. For the “hiding of the
divine face,” the opposite of “seeing the divine face,” see R. E. Friedman, “The Biblical Expression
mastir panim,” Hebrew Annual Review 1 (1977): 139-47; S. E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The
Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983).

399

EA 155:6, 47 identifies the sun with the pharaoh: sarru ¢samas daritum, “the king is the Eternal
Sun.” The latter phrase has equivalents in Ugaritic $p3 ‘Im attested in KTU 2.42 and 2.43.7 (see A.
B. Knapp, “An Alishiyan Merchant at Ugarit,” TA 10 [1983]: 39; D. Pardee, “Epigraphic and
Philological Notes,” UF 19 [1987]: 204-9) and Phoenician sms ‘Im in KAI 26 A II 19. The
Egyptian influence in KTU 2.42 and 2.43.9 is evident also from the presence of the name, nmry,
referring to Nebmare Amenophis III (cf. KTU 2.23.21-24). See A. Cooper, “MLK ‘ZM. ‘Eternal
King’ or ‘King of Eternity’?” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin
H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 3. For further

Egyptian influence in the phraseology of the Amarna correspondence, see Albright, “The Egyptian
Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre,” Journal of Egyptian Antiquities 23 (1937): 190-203.

600

On Hos. 6:3, see Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 423-24; J. L. Mays, Hosea: A Commentary, OTL
(London: SCM, 1969), 95-96; McCarter, II Samuel, 484. In connection with dawn imagery and
psalms of vigil, the paronomasia between yešahārūnění, “they will seek me” (Hos. 5:15), and šahar,
“dawn” (Hos. 6:3), may be noted.

601

McCarter, /7 Samuel, 484; Stáhli, Solare Elemente, 27-28. See also H. N. Richardson, *The Last
Words of David: Some Notes on 2 Samuel 23:1-7," JBL 90 (1971): 259; D. N. Freedman, “II
Samuel 23:4," /BL 90 (1971): 329-30; McCarter, 1] Samuel, 476-86. For a tenth-century dating of
this poem, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 234-37; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and
Prophecy, 95-97, 118; G. Rendsburg, “The Northern Origin of ‘the Last Words of David’ (2 Sam.
23, 1-7)," Biblica 69 (1988): 113-21.

602

For examples, see ANEP 349 and 377, no. 809a-c; see McKay, Religion in Judah, 52- 53, 102 n. 55.
For the recent discussion of the /m/k stamps, see N. Na’aman, “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the
LMLK Stamps," BASOR 261 (1986): 5-21; Y. Garfinkel, *The Distribution of Identical Seal
Impressions and the Settlement Pattern in Judea Before Sennacherib's Campaign," Cathedra 32
(1984): 35-52; G. Barkay and A. G. Vaughan, “LMLK and Official Seal Impressions from Tel
Lachish,” TA 23 (1996): 61-74; and Vaughan, “Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals and Its
Significance for Biblical Research" BASOR 313 (1999): 43-64, and Theology, History, and
Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4 (Atlanta,
GA: Scholars, 1999), 81-167.

603
See N. Avigad, “Three Ancient Seals,’ BA 49 (1986): 51-53.
604

McCarter, II Samuel, 484. On mgn for suzerain, see M. O’Connor, “Yahweh, the Donor,” Aula
Orientalis 6 (1988): 47-60.

605

See Morton Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” EI 16 (1982 = H. Orlinsky Festschrift): 205"; McCarter, I
Samuel, 484; Stahli, Solare Elemente, 39. Cf. F. Vattioni, “Mal. 3,20 e un mese del calendario
fenicio,” Biblica 40 (1959): 1012-15.

606

On ’or as the sun, see n. 13 above; cf. Gen. 1:14-16. For the image, cf. Ps. 97:11, LXX and Syriac.
607

M. S. Smith, review of Stahli, Solare Elemente, 514.
608

See O. Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1-5,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage:
Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1962), 201-6; M. S. Smith, “Bérit ‘amlbérit ‘6lam: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa
42:6,” JBL 100 (1981): 241-43.

609

See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 304-6, 471-
72; C. L. and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, AB 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987),
202-3.

610

Van Buren, Symbols of the Gods, 89-90; Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 45; see also W. G.
Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439; ANEP, 215 and 328, no. 658.

611

ANET, 62, 69; van Buren, Symbols of the Gods, 87-89; Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439;
Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduk, 174-81.

612

Lambert, “The Historical Development,” 197-98; Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439 n. 28;
Sommerfeld, Die Aufstieg Marduks, 10.

613

Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439 n. 28. For further evidence and discussion, see H.
Frankfort, “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Seals,” Iraq 1 (1934): 6, 21-29; and Sommerfeld, Der
Aufstieg Marduks, 9-12.

614

See ANEP, 168, no. 493; A. Caquot and M. Sznycer, Ugaritic Religion, 23 and pl. 7. For speculation
as to the meaning of the stele, see N. Wyatt, “The Stela of the Seated God from Ugarit,” UF 15
(1983): 271-77. See also H. Niehr, “Ein umstrittenes Detail der El-Stele aus Ugarit,” UF 24 (1992):
293-300. For a survey of the sun disk in Syro-Mesopotamia, see Mayer-Opificius, “Die geflügelte
Sonne,” 189-236. According to PE 1.10.36 (Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 56-57), Kronos had
wings. For the identification of El with Kronos in Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History, see PE
1.10.16, 29; cf. 1.10.20 (Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 48-49, 50-51, 54-55).

615

ANEP, no. 281. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 24, 26. Cf. Y. Yadin, “Symbols of
Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor,” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century:
Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 208-12.

616

According to Hestrin (“Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 75), the winged sun disk “symbolized the
supreme god in the Mesopotamian, Hittite and Canaanite pantheons.” Her analysis includes a cult
stand from Taanach (see n. 11 above); the top register of the stand depicts the solar disk above a
four-legged animal that she argues signifies Baal. J. G. Taylor identifies the animal as an equid and
connects it with the horses of the sun of 2 Kings 23:11 (“Yahweh and Asherah at Tenth Century
Taanach,” Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies 37/38 [1987]: 16-18; “Two Earliest Representations of
Yahweh,” 561-64). Questions about Taylor’s interpretation of the stand have been raised (e.g.,
Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 43-45; Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 321 n. 125,
323).

617

Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 62, 97-98.
618

Sarna, “Psalm XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-god Literature," 171-75.
619

Stáhli, Solare Elemente, 17-23. For Egyptian influence on Psalm 104, see P. Auffret, Hymnes
d'Egypte et d'Israel: Etudes des structures litteraires, OBO 34 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 279-302.

620

See G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed., trans. J. H. Marks, OTL (London: SCM, 1963),
54; C. Westermann, Genesis I, BKAT 1/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des
Erziehungsvereins GmbH, 1968), 179; B. Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1977), 48; Stahli, Solare Elemente, 17-19. It has been claimed (e.g., Vawter, On
Genesis, 48) that Gen. 1:16 uses the title “great light” (hamma ‘ôr haggadöl) instead of “the sun”
(hassemes) in order to diminish the divine connotation of the solar deity. Nonetheless, the title in
Gen. 1:16 echoes common titles for the sun-goddess in Ugaritic literature where she is called “the
great light,” nyr rbt (KTU 1.16 137-38; 1.161.19), and “the light of the gods,” nrt 'ilm (1.3 V 17;
1.4 VII 21; 1.6 18-9, 11, 13; 1.6 II 24).

621

For postbiblical use of solar imagery, see Morton Smith, “Helios in Palestine," 199"- 214".

622

Concerning the ancient Yahwistic background of these practices, see Fohrer, History of Israelite
Religion, 57-58, 114; Ahlstróm, Aspects of Syncretism, 11, 50-51; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, 17-18, 21-22, 73; Elizabeth C. LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of
Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters, HSM 61 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2001); and Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, esp. 256-63, 460-67.

623

On “high places” (bamöt), see in addition to references in the preceding note, Ringgren, Israelite
Religion, 157-58, 177; W. B. Barrick, “The Funerary Character of ‘High-Places’ in Ancient
Palestine: A Reassessment,” VT 25 (1975): 565-95; M. Haran, “Temples and Cultic Open Areas as
Reflected in the Bible,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the
Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion,
Jerusalem, /4-/6 March 1977, ed. A. Biran (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical
Archaeology of Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981 ), 31-37; Ahlstróm,
Royal Administration, 59-61; and J. A. Emerton, “The Biblical High Place in the Light of Recent
Study,” PEO 129 (1997): 116-23. Emerton correctly questions whether “high place” is an accurate
rendering for bamah. On bamot and especially the cultic installation at Tel Dan, see A. Biran, “Tel
Dan,” BA 37 (1974): 40-41; idem, “‘To the God Who Is in Dan,’” in Temples and High Places, 142-
51. G. Mendenhall (The Tenth Generation, 181) views the prohibitions against high places as a
function of the political religious establishment of Jerusalem; in his own words, bamöt “became
increasingly incompatible with ancient Yahwism, especially after the political establishment of
Yahwism under the Monarchy” (Mendenhall's italics) On the contrary, the monarchy
conservatively retained many features of Israelite religion, including high places. On the
conservatism of the monarchy especially under Manasseh, see Ahlström, Royal Administration, 75-
81.

624

See T. H. Blomquist, Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine; An
Investigation of the Archaeological and Biblical Sources, ConBOT 46 (Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell International, 1999), 151-63. For a dramatic illustration of a bamd, see A. Biran, “The High
Places of Biblical Dan,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A.
Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001
), 148-55.

625

K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East, AOAT 219 (Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986); cf. T. J. Lewis, Cults of the
Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, HSM 39 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 1-4. For further
discussion, see M. S. Smith and E. Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife at Ugarit and Ancient Israel,”
JAOS 108 (1988): 277-84. For a more fruitful treatment of the categories between “official” and
“popular” religion in this area, see R. Albertz, Persónliche Frómmigkeit und officielle Religion:
Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon, Calwer Theologische Monographien, Reihe A,
vol. 9 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1979); W. Brueggemann, review of Persönliche Frömmigkeit, by
Albertz, CBO 42 (1980): 86-87; Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,’” 83-84; J. S. Holladay, Jr.,
“Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach,” in
Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D.
Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 249-99; Miller, “Israelite Religion,” 215-
18; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 20 n. 64. To be sure, there was popular and official
religion in Israel. Official religion during the period of the monarchy was not maintained, however,
by the monarchy, priesthood, or prophets in the form suggested by Spronk. For the issue of religion
and social segments, see S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth Century
Judah, HSM 46 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992); J. Berlinerblau, “The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm
in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique,” JSOT 60 (1993): 3-26; idem, “Preliminary
Remarks for the Sociological Study of Israelite ‘Official Religion,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near
Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo,
and L. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 153-70; idem, The Vow and the “Popular
Religious Groups” of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry, JSOTSup 210
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria
and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, Studies in the History and Culture

of the Ancient Near East VII (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1996); Zevit, The Religions of Ancient
Israel, 643-48. For some questions about Berlinerblau's approach, see my review of his book in JSS
43 (1998): 148-51.

626

Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 219; B. Lang, “Life After Death in the Prophetic Promise,” Congress
Volume; Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 144-56.

627
See J. Lust, *On Wizards and Prophets," in Studies on Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers,
V'TSup 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 133. Cf. H. R. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Samuel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), 240; and McCarter, J Samuel, AB 14
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 422.

628

For another apparent example of necromancy in Israel, 2 Sam. 12:16, see H. Niehr, “Ein
unerkannter Text zur Nekromantie in Israel: Bemerkungen zum religionsgeschichtlichen
Hintergrund von 2 Sam 12, 16a,” UF 23 (1991): 301-6.

629

See Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” 140-42; W. A. M. Beuken, “I Sam 28: The Prophet as
“Hammer of Witches,”” JSOT 6 (1978): 15.

630
M. Noth, Numbers, trans. J. D. Martin, OTL (London: SCM, 1968), 195-97; Cross, Canaanite Myth

and Hebrew Epic, 202, 316. See also Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 231-32. Unlike Ps. 106:28, Num.
25:2 does not explicitly describe devotion to the dead, although it could have presupposed it.

631

See F. C. Fensham, *Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and 136: Post-Exilic Historical Traditions in
Poetic Form," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 9 (1981): 35-51, esp. 35 n. 6. A. Weiser
suggests the possibility that w. 40-47 refer to the fall of the northern kingdom (The Psalms, OTL
[London: SCM, 1962], 680, 682). In that case, Ps. 106:28 would provide information on "sacrifices
of the dead" as it was perceived in the mid-eighth century or later. Ps. 16:3 may also refer to the
honored dead, literally “the holy ones," qédósím (Pope in Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets,”
457; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 249, 334-38); the poem is often dated to the sixth century or later
(see C. A. and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1,
117-18; Weiser, The Psalms, 172-73). The practices to which v. 3 may allude, namely, the pouring
out of libations for the dead and the naming of the dead, date back to the Late Bronze Age both at
Ugarit and in Canaan proper (see Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 334-38).

632
See Smith and Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife,” 283.
633

See Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 40, 163, 252, 253, 255-56; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 128- 32. Neither
work addresses w. 20b-23. The following exegesis largely follows the lines drawn by J. G. Taylor,
cited in G. C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, JSOTSup 43 (Sheffield, England: JSOT,
1985), 329. For necromancy elsewhere condemned in Isaiah, see K. van der Toorn, “Echoes of
Judaean Necromancy in Isaiah 28, 7-22,” ZAW 100 (1988): 199-217.

634
Clements, Isaiah /-39, 102.
635

See O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, 2d ed., trans. J. Bowden, OTL (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1983), 200-202; Clements, Isaiah /-39, 102. Kaiser argues for a Persian period date
for these verses.

636

On *‘br for the dead, see J. Ratosh, *On "ebr 'in Scripture or the Land of A 'brym, " Beth Mikra 47
(1971): 549-68; B. Halevi, *Additional Notes on Ancestor Worship," Beth Mikra 64 (1975): 101-17;

Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts,” 173; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 229-30.
637

For the suggestions that the hbrm in KTU 1.108.5 are the Rephaim and rp’u in 1.108.1 is their
leader, see M. S. Smith, “The Magic of Kothar, the Ugaritic Craftsman God, in KTU 1.6 VI 49-50,”
RB 91 (1984): 377-80; idem, “Kothar wa-Hasis, the Ugaritic Craftsman God” (Ph.D. diss., Yale
University, 1985), 444. On mlk and rp’u as terms for the dead in Ugaritic, see below in section 3.
For a discussion of the identifications for rp 'u, see Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts,” 170; idem,
in Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets,” 446; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 90-91, 115-33; D. Pardee,
“A New Datum for the Meaning of the Divine Name Milkashtart,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical
and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup 67
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 55-67. If rp'u is to be identified with any other deity, the available
evidence would best support an identification with Ugaritic m/k who dwells in Ashtaroth (“ttrt),
although both m/k and rp’u could be epithets of one another or another deity. The title of
ANE.IRI,,.GAL be-el id-ri, “Nergal, lord of Idri,” attested at Emar (Emar 158:6) may be relevant.
This epithet is found in a text describing a piece of land bound by a tubinu (a type of road or
pathway) of “Nergal, lord of Idri.” If Idri proves to be a toponym equated with Ugaritic hdr ‘y and
biblical Edrei, Cooper’s identification of rp’u with Nergal/Resheph gains in force. I wish to thank
Mr. Douglas Green for bringing this epithet to my attention. However, it is possible to read the more
common Nergal name spelled syllabically be-el ma-hi-ri, “lord of the trade.” My thanks go to
Daniel Fleming for pointing out this possibility to me. See section 2 below for the Ugaritic
evidence.

638

For various views as to the date of the Holiness Code, see G. von Rad, “Form-Criticism of the
Holiness Code,” in Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. D. Stalker, Studies in Biblical Theology 119
(Chicago: H. Regnery, 1953), 25-36; M. Haran, “Holiness Code,” EncJud 8:820-25; I. Knohl, “The
Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals,’ Hebrew Union College
Annual 58 (1987): 65-117; D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985), 146-51.
Cf. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study, 102-7.

639

See A. Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88
(1968): 173 n. 29.

640

See A. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves North of Damascus Gate Jerusalem,” /EJ 26 (1976): 1-8; G.
Barkay and A. Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple,” Biblical Archaeology
Review 12 (1986): 22-39; E. M. Bloch-Smith, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the
Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24, esp. 217. For the meaning of “bed” in Isa. 28:16-20 as
a reference to a cave bench tomb, see Halpern, “The Excremental Vision,” 117.

641

Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 157.
642

For the text and translation of PE 1.10.10, see Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 42-43.
643

For the Akkadian evidence, see suma zakaru (CAD E, 400a; Z, 18); Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 119.
In CTA 17 (KTU 1.17 I 27f.), the son commemorates his deceased father. The stele that the son
erects is apparently in honor of “his ancestral god," "il ibh. Funerary steles are attested in KTU 6.13
and 6.14. Cf. Huehnergard, “The Vicinity of Emar,” 13, 15 (text 1:8), 17, 19 (text 2:11-12), 27-28.

644

B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, Studies in Biblical Theology 37 (Naperville, IL:
Allenson, 1962), 13; McBride, “The Deuteronomistic Name Theology,” 101; J. C. Greenfield, “Un
rite religieux araméen et ses paralléles," RB 80 (1973): 46-52. See also H. Tawil, “Some Literary
Elements in the Opening Sections of the Hadad, Zakir, and the Nerab Inscriptions in Light of East
and West Semitic Royal Inscriptions," Orientalia 43 (1974): 41 n. 3. See also KTU 1.161 (for

studies of this text, see W. T. Pitard, “RS 34.126: Notes on the Text,” Maarav 4/1 [1987]: 75-86; D.
Pardee, “Epigraphic and Philological Notes,” UF 19 [1987]: 211-16).

645

M. Jastrow, *Ro'eh and Hózeh in the Old Testament,” JBL 28 (1909): 49-50 n. 23; Curtis and
Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, 391.

646

Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 120-22. See Finkelstein, “Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” 114-
15.

647

On the marzeah in Northwest Semitic texts, including Amos 6 and Jeremiah 16, see M. H. Pope, “A
Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, ed. J. M.
Efird, W. F. Stinespring Festschrift (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 1972), 170- 203; idem, “The
Cult of the Dead at Ugarit,” in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, ed. G. D.
Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 176-79; N. Avigad and J. C. Greenfield, “A Bronze
phialé with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription,” IEJ 32 (1982): 118-28; B. Halpern, “A Landlord-
Tenant Dispute at Ugarit?” Maarav 2/1 (1979-80): 121-40; R. E. Friedman, “The MRZH Tablet
from Ugarit,” Maarav 2/2 (1979-80): 187-206; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife , 169-70, 196-202, 232,
248; C. Maier and E. M. Dörrfuss, “‘Um mit ihnen zu sitzen, zu essen und zu trinken’ Am 6; 7; Jer
16,5 und die Bedeutung von marze^h," ZAW 111 (1999): 45-57; J. L. McLaughlin, The marzeah in
the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in the Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence,
VTSup 86 (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2001); and Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 547-49,
576-77.

648

See W. H. Irwin, “ The Smooth Stones of the Wadi’? Isaiah 57,6,” CBO 29 ( 1967): 31- 40; T. J.
Lewis, “Death Cult Imagery in Isaiah 57,” Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987): 267-84.

649
Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 379.
650

S. Lieberman, “Afterlife in Early Rabbinic Literature,’ in Seper Ha-Yovel li-Kbod Tsevi Volfson
(Harry A. Wolfson Jubilee Volume), vol. 2 (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research,
1965), 511; E. Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology
(New York: Yeshiva University/KTAV, 1977), 19.

651
OTPs 1:651.
652
OTPs 2:348.
653
R. Posner, “Holy Places,” EncJud 8:922.
654

On early twentieth-century Palestinian Christian and Islamic beliefs on feeding the dead, see
Canaan, Mohammedan Saints, 188-93. Healing also occurs at tombs (Canaan, Mohammedan Saints,
114-15).

655

See P. G. Mosca, “Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and v?
(Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1975). The recent work of G. Heider, The Cult of Molek, presents
a substantial collection of the pertinent material; cf. D. Edelman, “Biblical Molek Reassessed,”
JAOS 107 (1987): 730; J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The
Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London : Yale Univ.
Press, 1993), 3-52; K. Koch, “Molek astral,” in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt :
Festschrift ftir Hans-Peter Miiller zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D.

Römheld, BZAW 278 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 29-50; Zevit, The Religions of Ancient
Israel, 469, 473, 476, 520-21, 530, 643, 653.

656
Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 68.
657

Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 281, 369; Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 216-20, 238-40; Heider, The Cult of
Molek, 223-408; idem, “A Further Turn on Ezekiel’s Baroque Twist in Ezek 20:25-26,” JBL 107
(1988): 721-24.

658

Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 195-223; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 319-26. Clements (Isaiah 1-39, 252)
follows H. Barth in assigning this passage to a seventh-century Josianic redaction of Isaiah’s
oracles.

659

See B. Delavault and A. Lemaire, “Une stele ‘molk’ de Palestine dediée a Eshmoun? RES 367
reconsidere,” RB 83 ( 1976): 569-83; idem, “Les inscriptions pheniciennes de Palestine,” RSF 7
(1979): 24-26; A. Gianto, “Some Notes on the Mulk Inscription from Nebi Yunis (RES 367),”
Biblica 68 (1987): 397-400.

660

For now, see the report of E. Carter, “The Injirli Stela: A Preliminary Report on the Injirli Stela,” at
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/stelasite/stelainfo.html; and “Recording the Stela: First
Step on the Road to Decipherment,” by B. Zuckerman and S. Kaufman, at
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/stelasite/stelainfo.html.

661

For example, a mlk sacrifice is dedicated to b ‘7 mn and tnt in Sousse (Hadrametum) in KAI 98:1-2
(cf. 99:1-2); to bl hmn in Constantine in 103:1-2; 107:1-4; 109:1-2; 110:1; to b 'Imn in Guelma
(Algeria) in 167:1-2; and to b'/ mn in Malta in 61A:3-4. For a full survey of evidence from the
Western Mediterranean, see S. Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial
Monuments in Their Mediterraneann Context, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 3 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). See also E. Lipinski, Dieux et déesses de l'univers phénicien et
punique, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 64, Studia Phoenicia XIV (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters &
Departement Oosterse Studies, 1995), 481-83.

662

R. M. Geer, Diodorus of Sicily, vol. 10, Books 14.66-100 and 20, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1957), 178-79. See Mosca,
“Child Sacrifice,” 4, 214; L. E. Stager, “Carthage: A View from the Tophet,” in Phónizier im
Westen, ed. H. G. Niemeyer, Madrider Beitrdge 8 (1982), 158.

663

Sarah Morris, private communication. I wish to thank Professor Morris for providing me with the
following classical references.

664

Plutarch’s Lives, vol. 1, trans. B. Perrin, Loeb Classical Library 46 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press; London: William Heinemann, 1967), 30-31.

665

C. Alessandrino, Protreptikos ai Greci, Corona Patrum Salesiana, Series Graeca 3 (Turin: Societa
Editrici Internazionale, 1940), 86-87.

666

On Theseus and the Minotaur, see Apollodorus, The Epitome of the Library of Apollodorus 1:7-9 (J.
G. Frazer, Apollodorus: The Library, vol. 2, Loeb Classical Library [London: William Heinemann;
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1921], 134-37). For further literary sources, see Lipinski, Dieux et
deesses, 480-83.

667

Harden, The Phoenicians, 86-91; S. Moscati, “New Light on Punic Art,” in The Role of the
Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations: Papers Presented to the
Archaeological Symposium at the American University of Beirut, March 1967, ed. W. W. Ward
(Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut, 1968), 68-71; idem, “Découvertes phéniciennes à Tharros,"
CRAIBL 1987, 483-503; Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 476-83. For a possible tophet in Tyre, see the
discussion in Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 439-40, with pertinent bibliography on p. 440 n. 127.

668

Stager, “Carthage: A View from the Tophet,” 155-66; Stager and Wolff, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage
— Religious Rite or Population Control?” Biblical Archaeology Review 10/1 (1984): 30-51, esp.
36-38; H. Benichou-Safar, “Sur l'incineration des enfants aux tophets de Carthage et de Sousse,"
Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 205 (1988): 57-67. For a history of discoveries at Carthage, see
Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 37-57.

669

This discussion is drawn from Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 49-56, esp. 54-55.
670

See Lipirifiski, Dieux et déesses, 483.
671

See M. Almagro-Gorbea, “Los relieves mitológicos orientalizantes de Pozo Moro,” Trabajos de
Prehistoria 35 (1978): 251-78, 8 pls.; idem, “Les reliefs orientalisants de Pozo Moro (Albacete,
Espagne),” in Mythes et Personnification: Travaux et Memoires, Actes du Colloque du Grand
Palais (Paris) 7-8 Mai 1977 (Paris: Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1980), 123-36, 7 pls.;
idem, “Pozo Moro y el influjo fenicio en el periodo orientalizante de la peninsula Ibérica,” RSF
10/2 (1982): 231-72. My thanks to Professor C. Kennedy for these references. For further
discussion, see Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 70-72, with a drawing of the relief on p.
288, figure 46a.

672
See Viva Archaeologia 1/2 (1968-69): 114 and 123, fig. 119.
673

C. G. Picard, “Sacra Punica, Etude sur les masques et rasoires de Carthage,” Karthago 13 (1967):
49-115; Moscati, “New Light on Punic Art,” 72; idem, The World of the Phoenicians, trans. A.
Hamilton (London: Praeger, 1968), 163-65; E. Stern, “Phoenician Masks and Pendants,” PEO 108
(1976): 109-18; W. Cullican, “Some Phoenician Masks and Their Terracottas,” Berytus 24 (1975-
76): 47-87; R. Hestrin and M. Dayyagi-Mendels, “Two Phoenician Pottery Masks,” Israel Museum
News 16 (1980): 83-88; Carter, “The Masks of Ortheia,” 355-74; A. Biran, “Tel Dan, 1981,” JEJ 32
(1982): 138, pl. 16:B.

674

Y. Yadin et al., Hazor // (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960), pls. 182-183; idem, “Symbols of Deities,” 223;
A. Ciasca, “Masks and Protomes,” in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Moscati (Milan : Bompiani, 1988),
354-69. For the mask depicted on a dancer with a musical instrument on a Late Bronze Age clay
plaque from Tel Dan, see A. Biran, “The Dancer from Dan, the Empty Tomb and the Altar Room,”
IEJ 36 (1986): 168-73. On masks in Israelite religion, see the speculations of Fohrer, History of
Israelite Religion, 114. Note also the mask before the enthroned god, possibly Yahweh, depicted on
a Persian period coin from Yehud (see chapter 1, section 1).

675

See Childs, The Book of Exodus, 609-10; M. Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in
Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in The Shelter of Elyon: Essays in Honor of G. W.
Ahlstróm, ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spenser, JsOTSup 31 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 159-73; W. L.
Propp, “The Skin of Moses’ Face — Transfigured or Disfigured?" CBQ 49 (1987): 375-86.

676

L. E. Stager, private communication.

677
Childs, The Book of Exodus, 618-19.
678

Childs, The Book of Exodus, 604; cf. Rashi on Exod. 34:29 in Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos,
Haphtaroth, and Rashis Commentary: Exodus, trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann
(Jerusalem: The Silbermann Family, 1930), 196.

679

For text and translation, see Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 60-63. On the identification
between Kronos and El in Philo of Byblos” Phoenician History, see chapter 4 n. 41.

680
M. H. Pope, “Moloch,” in Pope and Röllig, Syrien, 300.
681

Stager, “Carthage,” 160-62. T. Canaan records that parents when praying to saints for help for their
sick child call the child wahid, “only one” (Mohammedan Saints, 106 n. 2).

682
Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 56-57.
683

A. Spalinger, “A Caananite Ritual Found in Egyptian Reliefs,” Journal of the Society for the Study
of Egyptian Antiquities 8 (1978): 47-60.

684
J. B. Hennessey, “Thirteenth Century B.C. Temple of Human Sacrifice,” in Phoenicia and Its
Neighbors: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held 9-10 December 1983 at the Vrije Universiteit

Brussels, in cooperation with the Centrum voor Myceense en archaische-Grieke Cultuur, Studia
Phoenicia 3 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 85-104.

685
Ahlstróm, Royal Administration, 76 n. 2.
686

Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 100. Cf. mlk and ’dm in KAI 26 A III 12-13. For a different view, see
Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 428-29. For further discussion, see Brown, Late Carthaginian Child
Sacrifice, 29-35.

687

Cf. the Ugaritic dbh mlk, “royal sacrifice,” as in KTU 1.91.2. On this text, see Xella, “KTU 1.91,”
833-38.

688

KTU 1.100.41; 1.107.17; and RS 1986/2235.17 (Bordreuil, “Découvertes epigraphiques,” 298). See
further H. Niehr, “Herkunft, Geschichte und Wirkungsgeschichte eines Unterweltgottes in Ugarit,
Phónizien und Israel,” UF 30 (1998): 569-85, esp. 570-74.

689
See n. 16.
690

Interpreters who view these two words as divine names include Virolleaud, Ug V, 553; Attridge and
Oden, Philo of Byblos, 91 n. 127; Caquot, “La tablette RS 24.252 et la question des Rephaim
ougaritiques,” Syria 53 (1976): 299; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 31; A. J. Ferrera and
S. B. Parker, "Seating Arrangements at Divine Banquets,” UF 4 (1972): 38; M. Górg, "Noch
einmal: Edrei in Ugarit?" UF 6 (1974): 474-75; J. Gray, in Ugaritica VII, Mission de Ras Shamra
17 (Paris: Paul Geuthner; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 86; W. J. Horwitz, “The Significance of the Rephaim
rm. aby. btk rp'im,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 7 (1979): 40 n. 12; C. E. L'Heureux,
Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba'“al, and the Repha ‘im, HSM 21 (Missoula, MT: Scholars,

1979), 172; J. C. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra,” UF 1 (1969):
175; S. B. Parker, “The Feast of Rapi’u,” UF 2 (1970): 243. Increasingly, scholars favor interpreting
tttrt and hdr‘y as place-names, originally suggested by B. Margalit (“A Ugaritic Psalm [RS
24.252],” JBL 89 [1970]: 292-304). See M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Baal rpu in KTU 1.108; 1.113
und nach 1.17 VI 25-33,” UF 12 (1980): 174,176 (reversing their earlier view of the two words as
divine names in their article, “Der ‘Neujahrspsalm’ RS 24.252 Ug. 5, S. 551-557 Nr. 2,” UF7
[1975]: 115, 117); Heider, Cult of Molek, 118-23; Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,” UF 7 7
(1975): 352 and UF 8 (1976): 245; Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts,” 170; M. H. Pope and J.
Tigay, “A Description of Baal,” UF 3 (1971): 120; Smith, “Kothar wa-Hasis,” 385-88, 429-34;
Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 178; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 49; D. Pardee, Les textes
para-mythologiques de la 24° campagne (1961), Ras Shamra-Ougarit IX (Paris: Editions Recherche
sur les Civilisations, 1988), 94-96; Niehr, “Herkunft, Geschichte und Wirkungsgeschichte,” 570-74.
Discussion of the subterranean complex discovered at Edrei (Deraa) appears in both Pardee’s and
Niehr’s treatments. Interpreting “ttrt and Adr'y in KTU 1.108 as place-names is preferable to
viewing them as divine titles on the following grammatical grounds: first, Ugaritic ytb b- means to
"sit, dwell in” a particular place and not “sit with” someone (D. Pardee, “The Preposition in
Ugaritic,” UF 8 [1976]: 245; idem, “More on the Preposition in Ugaritic,” UF 11 [1979]: 686);
second, Ugaritic hd occurs rarely, if ever, as an A-word; third, *il in KTU 1.108.1 need not refer to
El, but it may mean “the god,” referring to a separate figure, rp‘u, named in the following line.
Furthermore, the biblical place-names Ashtaroth and Edrei are known in Josh. 12:4; 13:12, 31 (cf.
Num. 21:33; Deut. 1:4; 3:1) as the home of the last of the Rephaim, just as ‘ttrt and hdr y are the
home of rp'u, first noted by B. Margalit (“A Ugaritic Psalm [RS 24.252],” 193). It may be noted
further that the place-name Edrei belongs to a pre-Israelite stratum of Hebrew, as “d underlying d in
this place-name generally became /z/ in Hebrew, but d in Ugaritic and Aramaic (see Rainey, “The
Toponyms,” 4).

691
See Lipinski, Dieux et déesses, 477.
692

S. Ribichini and P. Xella, *Milk'astart, mlk(m) e la tradizione siropalestinese sui Refaim,” RSF 7
(1979): 145-58. See also S. Ribichini, "In'ipotesi per Milk'astart," Rivista di Studi Orientalisti 50
(1976): 43-55; A. Caquot, “Le dieu Milk‘ashtart et les inscriptions de Umm el ‘Amed,” Semitica 15
(1965): 29-33. Gibson (Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3, 39) views mlk'strt as a
combination of the names El and Astarte. Gibson's interpretation is based on the argument that
mlk'strt is given the title b'] hmn in an inscription from Umm el- ‘Amed (no. 13:1; see Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 24 n. 60; Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3,
121), but Gibson interprets b7 hmn in other inscriptions as a title of El (so also B. Landsberger,
Sam’al [Ankara: Druckerei der Türkischen historischen Gesellschaft, 1948], 47 n. 117; Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 24-28; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 52-54).

693

Edelman, “Biblical Molek Reassessed,” 730.
694

Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts,” 170, 172.
695

OTPs 1:987.
696

BDB, 574; Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 121-22; E. Puech, *Milkom, le dieu ammonite, en Amos I
15,” VT 27 (1977): 117-25; Heider, Cult of Molek, 302-4.

697

On Isa. 57:3-13, see Irwin, “The Smooth Stones,” 31-40. Regarding Ps. 106:34-38, see Hackett,
“Religious Traditions," 133. On both passages, see Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 231-33.

698
Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 231-33.

99

Albright, “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” in Volume de Congres, Strasbourg 1956, VTSup 4
(Leiden: Brill, 1957), 242-58; Barrick, “The Funerary Character,” 565-95. See also Ringgren,
Israelite Religion, 157; Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 198.

700
Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 44-48.

701
For some of the difficulties in assessing historical evidence, see Machinist, “The Question of
Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel,” in Ah, Assyria ... : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near

Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al, Scripta
Hierosolymitana 33 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 196-212.

702
On the deities of the states surrounding Israel, see chapter 1, section 4.
703
For minor deities in Iron Age Israel, see Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods.
704
See chapter 3, section 4.
705

On the biblical evidence for Tammuz, see E. M. Yamauchi, “Tammuz and the Bible,” JBL 84
(1965): 283-90; McKay, Religion in Judah, 68-69. Regarding Dumuzi in Mesopotamian religion,
see also T. Jacobsen, “Toward the Image of Tammuz,” History of Religions 1 (1961): 189- 213 =
Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. W. L.
Moran, HSS 21 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970), 73-103; idem, “Religious Drama in
Ancient Mesopotamia,” 65-72; Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 161-64.
On the medieval evidence for the cult of Ta’uz (= Tammuz) among the Sabeans of Harran, see
Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 162. On Hadad-Rimmon, see J. C.
Greenfield, “The Aramaean God Ramman/Rimmon, " IEJ 26 (1976): 197-98; J. Gray, “Baal,” IDB
1:329. See the recent discussion of these figures by T. N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection:
“Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East, ConBOT 50 (Stockholm : Almqvist & Wiksell
International, 2001), esp. 185-215. See also n. 27 below.

706
So Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 117-272; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, esp. 11-12, 65-73.
On “Molek,” see chapter 5, section 3.

107
Cf. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 19.

708

See Hyatt, “The Deity Bethel,” 81-98; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 46-47 n. 14. For
the attestation of El-Bethel in the Aramaic version of Psalm 20 written in Demotic, see Nims and
Steiner, “A Paganized Version,” 264,

709

E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1986), 202.

710

See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 155-298; J. D. Levenson, review of God and His People, by E.
W. Nicholson, CBQ 50 (1988): 307. Ahlstróm (“Travels of the Ark,” 148 n. 34) notes that the cult of
el berit/ba ‘al berit in Judges 6-7 would point to covenant as a Canaanite feature. For the problems
with this assumption, see R. E. Clements, “Baal-Berith of Shechem,” JSS 13 (1968): 21-32. On
Judges 6-7, see chapter 1, section 3. For an optimistic appraisal of the role of covenant in early
Israel, see Sperling, “Israel’s Religion in the Ancient Near East,” 21-27.

411

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 241-65; Smith, “Berit “am/beriit 'ólam," 241- 43;
Nicholson, God and His People, 44-45.

112

In addition to the treatments of kingship noted in Introduction n. 16, see A. S. Kapelrud, “King and
Fertility,” Norsk teologisk tidsskrift 56 (1955): 113-22; and O. H. Steck, Friedensvorstellungen in
alten Jerusalem, Theologische Studien 3 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 19-35.

713

McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 215, 259-60, 284-85; idem, *Ebla, Öpyaı teuveıv, tb, Im: Addenda
to Treaty and Covenant, ” Biblica 60 (1979): 250-51. See also K. L. Roberts, God, Prophet, and
King: Eating and Drinking on the Mountain in First Kings 18:41," CBQ 62 (2000): 632-44.

14

On the dating of Exod. 24:1-11, and the relationship between units, w. 1-2, 3-8, 9-11, see Childs,
The Book of Exodus, 499-507, esp. 501; Nicholson, God and His People, 122-33; Levenson, review
of Nicholson, God and His People, 307; Roberts, “God, Prophet, and King," 638-40. On “E,” see R.
K. Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist,” JBL 119 (2000): 201-20. The general attribution of vv. 3-8 to
the “Elohist” source or tradition would place this unit in the first half of the monarchy according to
a traditional dating of the Pentateuchal sources or traditions.

113

McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 143. See also the comments of Y. Aharoni, “Israelite Temples
in the Period of the Monarchy,” in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1, ed.
P Peli (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969), 73; and more recently, Z. Herzog, “The
Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History
of Religion in Judah,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A.
Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001), 156-78. The evidence from Arad suggests cultic activity through the late seventh century
(see F. M. Cross, “Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of ‘Arad,”
BASOR 235 [1979]: 77; D. Ussishkin, “The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad,” IEJ 37-38 [1987-
88]: 142-57). The Korahites are known from the Arad inscriptions and in the Jerusalem temple,
according to 1 Chron. 6:22; 9:19, the psalmic superscriptions bearing their name (see Psalms 42, 44-
49, 84-85, 87-88), and the genealogy of Korah (1 Chron. 2:43; see J. M. Miller, “The Korahites of
Southern Judah," CBO 32 [1970]: 58-68). On the Korahites in 1 Chronicles, see also D. L. Petersen,
Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles, SBLMS 23
(Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 55-87.

716

Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 51.
717

M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, // Kings, AB II (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 67.
718

See J. J. M. Roberts, “The Religio-Political Setting of Psalm 47," BASOR 221 (1976): 129-32; cf. E.
S. Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1, With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, The Forms of the Old
Testament Literature 14 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 198.

119

J. Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1986), 39-41; cf. Patrick, Old Testament Law, 189-218. For writing in Israel, see J. L.
Crenshaw, "Education in Ancient Israel," JBL 104 (1985): 601-15, and Education in Ancient Israel:
Across the Deadening Silence, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998). A.
Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l'ancien Israel, OBO 39 (Fribourg: Editions
Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); idem, "Sagesses et Écoles," VT 34
(1984): 270-81. Note also the important cautions issued in S. Niditch, Oral World and Written
Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: Westminster /John Knox, 1996); and R. F. Person, Jr.,
"The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer," JBL 117 (1998): 601-9. See further pp. xxii-xxiv
above.

720

On the political function of the ark, see Ahlstróm, “The Travels of the Ark,” 141-48.
121

Many commentators view the oracles against the nations in Amos 1:3-2:16 as secondary and late;
nonetheless, some of these oracles may date to an eighth-century tradent. For the various positions,
see H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, trans. W. Jansen, S. D. McBride, Jr., and C. A. Muenchow,
Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 112, 139-42, 151-52; R. B. Coote, Amos Among the
Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 66-70.

722

See Nicholson, God and His People, 134-50, 179-88; cf. Levenson, review of Nicholson, God and
His People, 307. On the dating of Hos. 6:7 and 8:1, see also Yee, Composition and Tradition, 279-
81, 288-89.

723

S. Kaufman, “The Structure of Deuteronomic Law,” Maarav 1/2 (1979): 105-58. See Miller,
“Israelite Religion,” 211-12; and the important book of B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the
Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).

724

See the essays in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. E. Ben-
Zvi and M. H. Floyd, SBL Symposium 10 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).

725

Barr, “The Problem of Israelite Monotheism,” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental
Society 17 (1957-58): 52-62.

726

R. J. Clifford, “The Function of Idol Passages in Second Isaiah,” CBO 42 (1980): 450- 64; Smith,
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 179-94.

727

See the essays in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic
and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel, OTS XLII (Leiden/Boston/ Köln: Brill,
1999). The gardens mentioned in Isa. 17:10-11, 65:3, and 66:17 may be related to the cult of
Adonis. The practice of eating pig in Isaiah 65 and 66 could be suggestive of the cult of Osiris
(Jonas Greenfield, private communication). For a general discussion, see de Vaux, The Bible and the
Ancient Near East, 210-37.

728

See H. Gunkel, “The Prophets as Writers and Poets,” in Prophecy in Israel; Search for an Identity,
trans. J. L. Schaaf, ed. D. L. Petersen, Issues in Religion and Theology 10 (Philadelphia: Fortress;
London: SPCK, 1987), 25, 28; A. Loisy, The Religion of Israel, trans. A. Galton (New York: G. P
Putnam’s Sons, 1910), 196; L. Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgement,” in
Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust,
Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum 74 (Louvain: Univ. Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986), 187;
R. R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” in Harper's Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1988), 657-58; cf. Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical
History and Sociology, The Social World of Biblical Antiquity (Sheffield, England: Almond, 1983),
138-56.

729

Wilson, “Ezekiel,” 657-58. While the book of Ezekiel assumes of its audience the notion that some
of the prophecies were orally delivered (e.g., 3:11; 6:2; 12:10, 23; 13:7; 14:4), the portrait of the
silent prophet in Ezek. 3:26-27, 24:27, and 33:22 (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 120- 21) would suit a
reading audience better than a hearing audience. The extended portraits of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in
contrast to the descriptions of Isaiah, Hosea, or Amos, would also suggest a written work, although
the observation of this contrast is not intended to imply that the stories of the eighth-century
prophets were not possibly written in character.

730

J. MacDonald identifies some grammatical features common to both spoken speech and poetry;
both are notably less marked than prose (“Some Distinctive Features of Israelite Spoken Hebrew,”
BiOr 33 [1975]: 162-75). Furthermore, inverted word order occurs proportionately more frequently
in the prose of direct speech and poetry than in narrative prose. See also J. Blau, “Marginalia
Semitica III,” JOS 7 (1977): 23-27. For the problems involved in distinguishing between prose and
poetry, see A. Cooper, “On Reading Biblical Poetry,” Maarav 4/2 (1987): 221-41.

131
Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 205-6.
132

See M. Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse: The Book of the Watchers and Tours of
Heaven,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages, ed. A. Green, World
Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 13 (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 155.

233

O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. R. Ackroyd (New York/ Evanston:
Harper & Row, 1965), 340. See also G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2, The Theology of
Israels Prophetic Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 242; R. R.
Wilson, *The Community of the Second Isaiah," in Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, ed.
C. R. Seitz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 60. See the strong literary arguments made for this view
by B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, Contraversions. Jews and
Other Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998). While waw-consecutive forms are
found in quoted speeches, they are considerably rarer in quoted speeches than in narrative
(MacDonald, *Some Distinctive Features," 162-63, 175).

134
F. Blake, “Forms of Verbs After Waw in Hebrew,” JBL 65 (1946): 57.
135

For cases of waw consecutive in Second Isaiah, see Isa. 40:4, 5, 14, 22, 24; 41:7, 9, 11; 42:15, 16,
25; 43:12, 14, 28; 44:4, 12, 13, 14, 15; 45:3, 4, 22; 46:4, 13; 47:6, 7, 10; 48:5, 15, 18, 19; 49:2, 3, 6,
7, 14, 21, 22, 23, 26; 50:6; 51:2, 3, 13, 15, 16, 23; 52:10; 53:2, 9; 54:12; 55:10, 11, 13 (cf. 42:6).
MT wé’amar in Isa. 40:6 is problematic. IQIsa* reads w’wmrh, which has been understood as either
a first person form with the final “cohortative” ending -ah (Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic, 188) or a feminine singular participle (Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 20-21, 46-47 n. 15).
The evidence favors the former view (see Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol.
2, Isaie, Jérémie, Lamentations, 278-79).

236

For these points, with further discussion, see Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism , esp. 77-
79, 163-66.

237

For scholars who speak of monotheism in the “Mosaic age,” see Albright, From the Stone Age to
Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, 2d ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
1957), 257-72; Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 229-31; J. Milgrom, “Magic, Monotheism, and
the Sin of Moses,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E.
Mendenhall, ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1983), 251-65, esp. 263; I. M. Zeitlin, Ancient Judaism: Biblical Criticism from Max Weber to the
Present (Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1984). For criticisms of this position, see T. J. Meek,
“Monotheism and the Religion of Israel,” JBL 61 (1942): 21-43; J. Barr, “Problem of Israelite
Monotheism,” 52-62; H. H. Rowley, “Moses and Monotheism,” From Moses to Qumran: Studies in
the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1963), 35-63; Halpern, ““Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,”” 80-
82; C. Schafer-Lichtenberger, review of Ancient Judaism, by 1. Zeitlin, JAOS 108 (1988): 160-62.

738

Gottlieb, “El und Krt,” 159-67; Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 23; B. Lang, Monotheism
and the Prophetic Minority, 13-59; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 143. See also B.
Hartmann, “Es gibt keinen Gott ausser Jahwe. Zur generellen Verneinung im Hebraischen,” ZDMG
110 (1960): 229-35.

139

W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. J. A. Bakker, OTL (London: SCM, 1961),
220-27, 363-64; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, The Theology of Israels Historical
Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1962), 210- 12; Fohrer,
History of Israelite Religion, 172; H. Wildberger, “Der Monotheismus Deuterojesajas,” in Beitráge
zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift fiir Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H.
Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 506-30; Ahlström,
Royal Administration, 69; H. Klein, “Der Beweis der Einzigkeit Jahwes bei Deuterojesaja,” VT 35
(1985): 267-73; B. Lang, “Yahwé seul! Origine et figure du monothéisme biblique,” Concilium 97
(1985): 55-64. For further surveys of the development of monotheism in Israel, see H. P. Miiller,
“Gott und die Gótter in den Anfángen der biblischer Religion: Zur Vorgeschichte des
Monotheismus,” in Monotheismus im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (Fribourg: Verlag
Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980), 99-142; F. Stolz, “Monotheismus in Israel,” in
Monotheismus im Alten Testament, 143-89; Halpern, “*Brisker Pipes Than Poetry," 77-115;
Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism,” 92-107.

740

See Introduction.
741

R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 192-212.
742

G. Mendenhall, “The Monarchy,” Interpretation 29 (1975): 155-70; idem, The Tenth Generation,
21-31, 114, 181, 196; cf. J. Bright, 4 History of Israel, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972),
141, 221-24, 281-82. For criticisms of these negative views of the monarchy and a positive
assessment of the monarchy, see J. J. M. Roberts, “In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of
Israelite Kingship to Biblical Theology,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank
Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 377-96.

143

L. K. Handy (“Hezekiah’s Unlikely Reform,” ZAW 100 [1988]: 111-15) disputes the religious
motives attached to Hezekiah's reform in 2 Chronicles 31 and attributes Hezekiah's changes in
religious policies to the political vicissitudes of Sennacherib's advances into Judah.

744

Petersen, *Israel and Monotheism," 92-107. Mendenhall (The Tenth Generation, 21, 194) and de
Moor (“Crisis of Polytheism,” 1-20) argue for a revolutionary schema.

745

P. Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay.” See also E. L.
Greenstein, “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: How Different Were They?” Proceedings
of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29-August 5, 1997, Division A, The Bible
and Its World, ed. R. Margolin (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999), 47- 58; S. A.
Geller, “The God of the Covenant,” in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient
World, ed. B. N. Porter, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute (Bethesda, MD:
CDL Press, 2000), 273-319; Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 687-90.

746
See chapter 3, section 5.
ራያ

See the important compilation of M. C. A. Korpel, 4 Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew
Descriptions of the Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990). See also the suggestive study of J. D.
Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, JSOTSup 49
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988).

748

On divine feasting in Ugaritic, see especially KTU 1.3 I; 1.4 VI; 1.15 HI; 1.20-22. The sequence of
feasting and sexual relations underlie 1.4 IV 27-39 and 1.23.37-52. On this section of 1.23, see del

Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 434-35, 444-45; and R. M. Good, “Hebrew and Ugaritic nht,” UF 19
(1987): 155-56.

149

On the topos of the heavenly temple in Ugaritic, biblical, and intertestamental literature, see
Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse,” 145-65; Smith, “Biblical and Canaanite Notes,” 585-
87.

750

On KTU 1.114, see Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 198-201. On El’s sexual exploits in KTU 1.23, see
Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 37-41; idem, “Ups and Downs in El's Amours,” UF 11 (1979 =
Festschrift fur C. F. A. Schaeffer): 701-8; cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 22- 24;
Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 42 n. 13. Regarding KTU 1.5 V and the site of Baal’s
mating, see M. S. Smith, “Baal in the Land of Death,” UF 17 (1986): 311-14. Biblical literature
generally renders the power of death as demonic and not a full-fledged deity (see chapter 2, section
2, and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 130-31).

151

One problem in comparing conceptions of deity in Ugaritic and Israelite literatures is the way in
which scholars use different genres to serve as the basis for comparison. For example, depictions of
deities in the Ugaritic Baal cycle, Aqhat, or Keret are commonly compared with descriptions of
Yahweh in the Psalms. While there is certainly common material between these two groups, the
relative anthropomorphism might be gauged better by comparing descriptions of deity in the Psalms
and Ugaritic prayers (e.g., KTU 1.119.26-38). On these problems, see Cassuto, Biblical and
Oriental Studies, vol. 2, Bible and Ancient Oriental Texts, 69-109; C. Conroy, “Hebrew Epic:
Historical Notes and Critical Reflections,” Biblica 61 (1980): 1-30; Cross, Canaanite Myth and
Hebrew Epic, esp. viii-ix; Greenfield, “Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 545-60; Hallo,
“Individual Prayers," 71-75; S. Parker, “Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology,”
Maarav 2/1 (1979): 7-41; S. Talmon, “Did There Exist a Biblical National Epic?” in Proceedings of
the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East
(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981), 41-61. It might be argued that Israel’s lack of
mythic material compared to its Canaanite neighbors is a further sign of its distinctive religious
character. However, the strong mythic character in some apocalyptic material indicates that Israel
continued to employ highly anthropomorphic renderings of Yahweh (see chapter 3, section 5, for
discussion). For discussion of some of these problems in a theological framework, see Childs, Myth
and Reality, 94-105. For the question of mythic material in the Deuteronomistic History, see
Halpern, The First Historians, 266-71.

152

The labels “priestly” and “Deuteronomistic” are not intended to imply that proponents of
Deuteronomistic theology did not participate in Israel’s priesthood. Some members belonged to the
Levitical priesthood in the northern kingdom down to the time of its fall and probably afterward,
given the biblical indications of later religious activity (2 Kings 23:19; cf. 2 Chron. 30:1-12; 31:1;
34:9; 35:18; Jer. 41:5). (To be sure, the reform of the cult of Bethel following the fall of the northern
kingdom mentioned in 2 Kings 23:15 does not point to southern influence generally in the north, as
Bethel belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. Due to its geographical proximity to the south, Benjamin
became a virtual part of the southern kingdom, as Jer. 16:26 illustrates. For the northern border of
Judah, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 109 n. 57) Some members of the northern
Levitical priesthood came to Jerusalem in the wake of the north’s fall. At this time Deuteronomistic
views became influential in the southern capital (see Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient
Israel, 156-57, 298-306). The Levitical background of Deuteronomistic theology illustrates how
much the Pentateuch and the historical and prophetic books were shaped by members of Israel’s
priesthood. Indeed, the development of the Hebrew Bible is due largely to the history of conflict and
compromise between Israel’s various priestly lines. For an analysis of the history of Israelite
religion along these lines, see P. D. Hanson, The People Called: The Growth of Community in the
Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); cf. S. D. McBride, Jr., “Biblical Literature in Its
Historical Context: The Old Testament,” Harpers Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 14-26.

153

Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 19.

154

For these points, see M. S. Smith, “Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel,” in Ein Gott allein?
ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, 222-23.

125

T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press, 1976), esp. 164; Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism,” 92-107.